Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Port of London Authority (Consolidation) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

HARBOURS, DOCKS, AND PIERS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL.

Ordered, "That the Lords Amendment be considered forthwith."—[Mr. Neal.]

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 4.—(As to applications for an order.)

An application to the Minister of Transport for the purposes of this Act shall be accompanied by such information, certified in such manner as the Minister may require, with respect to the financial position of the undertaking in question; and before making an order the Minister shall require the undertakers to give public notice of the application for an order under this Act, and as to the manner in which, and the time within which, representations to the Minister may be made, and the Minister shall consider any representations which may be duly made.

Lords Amendment: After the word "application" ["application to the Minister"] insert the words "by the undertakers."

Agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

NURSES (SERVICE WITH ALLIED POWERS).

2. Captain COOTE: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware of the
position in which disabled British nurses who have served with the forces of Allied Powers are placed; that these ladies have been refused pension upon the ground that they did not serve under contract with the British military authorities; that they are not pensioned by the governments with whose forces they served; and whether he is prepared to consider bonâ fide cases of hardship due to these facts?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): These ladies undertook service direct with Allied Governments or with organisations of Allied countries, and are not therefore eligible for compensation in respect of disabilities incurred during such service, under the terms of the Pensions Warrants administered by my Department. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to accept the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain COOTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not able to recommend the alteration of this Warrant, or, alternatively, will he make advances to the Allied Governments, with a view to securing that these ladies shall not be left in penury?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid it is not possible for me to alter the Warrant, but I am prepared to do everything in my power to convey the facts to the Governments concerned.

SOLDIER'S WIDOW (MRS. PREECE).

3. Mr. SHORT: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is now able to give a decision respecting the case of Mrs. Preece, of 6, Church Road, Tipton, the widow of Private R. Preece, No. 31,349, South Staffordshire Regiment?

Mr. MACPHERSON: An award of pension has been refused in this case on the ground that the disease of which the late soldier died in July, 1919, could not be accepted as contracted or commencing on active service, which terminated in April, 1917. An appeal against this decision has been lodged, and will be forwarded immediately to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for hearing.

Mr. SHORT: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that I have been informed that this has already been remitted to the Appeal Tribunal, and that this case was raised so far back as February this year, and we are still awaiting a deci-
sion? This woman has a family dependent on her, and they are almost on the verge of starvation.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I do not know the facts of the case, but I can say that if the case is not now before the Appeal Tribunal it will soon be there.

Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been informed it has been remitted there some considerable time? Now he says it is going to be remitted. What does it mean?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I have said that an appeal has been lodged.

PENSIONS OFFICE, CHESTER.

5. Mr. MILLS: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that one of the male control of the issue office responsible for reporting that no bugs existed in the Chester hut has now changed his opinion owing to the fact that one of the vermin in question has dropped on his own head; and whether it would be possible for a representative of the Ministry of Pensions to put the truth of the complaints as to vermin to the test by spending one night in the Chester hut or, failing this, can he see his way to fumigate the hut or remove the staff?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am aware of the nuisance complained of, but since the matter was first reported to me, I have been guided, not by the opinion of any single member of the staff of my Department, but by the advice of experts placed at my disposal by my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the First Commissioner. There has been a recent recrudescence of the trouble, but every step will immediately be taken to stop it.

Mr. MILLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the latest information is that contamination is now being carried in books? It is very necessary that some steps should be taken.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am taking every possible step.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

LAND SETTLEMENT, IRELAND.

8. Mr. DONALD: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland the amount of land
acquired in Ireland for settlement of ex-service men; the names of those counties in which satisfactory progress has been made and also those in which the progress is not satisfactory; and the total number of ex-service men at present placed upon the land in Ireland?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): Up to the present the Estates Commissioners have made offers under the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, to purchase some 4,350 acres of untenanted land, and their offers have been accepted in respect of 750 acres, but the proceedings have not yet sufficiently advanced in these cases to take possession of the lands. The Commissioners have also instituted compulsory proceedings in respect of 870 acres for which their offers have been refused, but objections have been filed in these cases, and they will come before the Court for adjudication at an early date. The Estates Commissioners have provided holdings for 74 ex-service men on lands acquired under the Land Purchase Acts. The Local Government Board have made 40 schemes up to the present for the acquisition of 647 acres of land. Seven of these schemes, involving the compulsory acquisition of about 83 acres of land, have been confirmed, and the land will be taken as soon as the necessary legal formalities have been complied with. In addition, the Board have agreed to purchase 100 acres of land, but until questions of title have been decided, they are advised they cannot take possession.

CIVIL SERVICE.

45, 46 and 47. Captain LOSEBY: asked the Prime Minister (1) if he is aware that competent ex-service men temporarily employed in the Civil Service are being daily discharged; that generally speaking ex-service men are employed in the lower grades in a temporary capacity only; that high positions are in many cases occupied by young men who avoided service; if he will consider the advisability of ordering a searching inquiry into the whole personnel of the Civil Service;
(2) if he has considered the advisability of discontinuing the competitive examination for the permanent Civil Service until such time as all completely competent ex-service men temporarily employed have been absorbed;
(3) if it is his intention to set up substitution committees entrusted with the task of advising on the best methods of substituting ex-service men for others with less claims upon the State throughout the Civil Service, and to give the names of the Departments in which these committees have been set up?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): Returns taken for 1st May, 1920, show that out of a total of 122,589 ex-service men then employed in Government offices more than 80,300 were employed in a permanent capacity. So far as is consistent with economy and efficiency in their staffing arrangements, the various Government Departments are doing all they can to retain the ex-service men who hold temporary appointments. As the hon. and gallant Member is already aware, a Committee is being set up to consider what modifications, if any, should be made in the existing arrangements for the employment of ex-service men in Government Departments, and that Committee will also consider the question of the conditions under which ex-service men should be given permanent posts in the Civil Service.

CIVIL LIABILITIES DEPARTMENT.

72. Colonel YATE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the increase since the Armistice in the number of persons employed in the Civil Liabilities Department, and the extra cost involved thereby?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply. At the date of the Armistice the staff consisted of 609 persons, at an estimated annual cost of £79,000. The staff were employed upon the scheme originated in 1916 for meeting the contractual obligations of soldiers with the Colours. After the Armistice an entirely new scheme for giving assistance towards resettlement in civil life was introduced.
As, up to the present, some 246,889 applications under the second scheme have been received, it will be obvious that an increase in the staff was inevitable. The actual increase in numbers has been very small, the total of persons now employed being 660. The estimated annual cost is £136,000, but it should be pointed out that a considerable propor-
tion of this cost is due to war bonus and increases to meet the cost of living.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: How much of that expenditure relates to Ireland?

Dr. MACNAMARA: I should prefer to have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

TEACHERS (SALARIES).

9. Mr. DONALD: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he will state the proposals of the Government with regard to the financial position of school teachers in Ireland, seeing that it is not the intention of the Government to proceed with the Irish Education Bill before the Adjournment?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: An interim grant, estimated to amount to over £350,000, has been made in full and final settlement of all claims of primary teachers for the financial year 1919–20. As regards the remuneration of these teachers from the 1st April, 1920, the Treasury have agreed conditionally to this matter being referred to the Civil Service Arbitration Board. In the case of intermediate teachers, it has been decided by the Treasury also to make an interim grant. The amount of this grant and the method of distribution are at present under consideration.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Is it likely that those disbursements will soon be made, because these people are in a bad way?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I appreciate the distressed condition of many of these people, and I can assure my hon. Friend there will be no delay in issuing the money.

CARRYING ARMS, LONDONDERRY.

11. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Chief Secretary of Ireland whether William Kane, Samuel King, Thomas Bramble, Samuel Fleming, and John Lappin, all Ulster Volunteers of Londonderry, were tried recently by special Crimes Court in Londonderry before Major Brett, resident magistrate, and Mr. R. Sparrow, resident magistrate, on a charge of carrying rifles and ammunition; whether they were found guilty and sentenced to a fine of £5 each; whether Joseph Trany, of Bunavie,
county Limerick, was tried by district court-martial at Cork on 23rd June, 1919, on a charge of having a revolver and ammunition; and whether he was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The prisoners referred to in the first part of the question pleaded guilty and were fined as stated, but I would point out that the hon. and gallant Member, while mentioning all the cases of Ulster Volunteers charged with carrying arms during the Derry riots, and implying that they were given preferential treatment, has omitted to mention that several persons of the opposite faction were arrested in exactly the same circumstances, were brought before the same Court, charged with the same offence, and received the same sentence. The circumstances in the case of James Tracy—not Joseph Trany, as mentioned in the question—were quite different.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was not James Tracy punished in this way long before there were political murders or assassinations of police in Ireland, and does the right hon. Gentleman not think a better example should be made of men of all faiths and factions carrying rifles, in Londonderry?

Mr. C. PALMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is quite natural that Ulster men should arm themselves against the dastardly assassinations of the Sinn Feiners?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: With reference to the supplementary question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I cannot, without notice, say when James Tracy was sentenced, but I am convinced that the sentence of 18 months' hard labour for what was in effect threatening the life of an officer was not too severe.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why these men of different faith in Londonderry are only fined for carrying rifles and ammunition, especially in view of the heavy loss of life in Londonderry, and whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to take possession of the rifles scattered all over that unhappy city?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The charge was that of carrying rifles and ammunition,
and the sentence was given by a Resident Magistrate, and I cannot interfere with the sentence of any judicial officer in Ireland.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman now going to take possession of these rifles scattered all over Londonderry?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must give notice of that.

REPUBLICAN FLAG (QUEENSTOWN).

14. Colonel ASHLEY: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland why no steps were taken last week to haul down the Republican Flag hoisted on Wednesday 7th July, on the Admiralty Pier, Queenstown, by order of the Harbour Commissioners; and were any orders issued to the police on patrol duty at that spot not to interfere with this disloyal emblem?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed the flag referred to was hoisted on the Admiralty Pier, which is the property of the Cork Harbour Board, on the 8th instant, and was taken down a few hours afterwards. As far as is known, no such order as indicated in the question was issued to the police.

Colonel ASHLEY: Could the right hon. Gentleman say who took it down?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am informed that this flag was put up by certain gentlemen, who are not, at any rate, likely to put up the Union Jack, and was pulled down by them shortly afterwards, for fear it would be taken down by force by those who objected to having the flag up.

Colonel ASHLEY: Are we to understand from that that the right hon. Gentleman has issued, or will issue, orders to the police in Ireland at once to haul down the Republican flag where-ever and whenever they see it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That power is now within the discretion both of the military and the police.

ILLEGAL COURTS.

15. Colonel ASHLEY: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the week before last in North Longford a young farmer was charged before a volunteer republican court with
using language towards the Irish republican army likely to cause disaffection; that on apologising the sentence was modified and he was only ordered to pay a fine of £4; and are the Government taking any steps to protect law-abiding people from these illegal fines and punishments?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The only information the Government have regarding the incident is derived from a newspaper report, which is not evidence upon which proceedings could be taken.

COUNTY DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL.

16. Colonel ASHLEY: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the County Dublin County Council have pledged their allegiance to the republican assembly in Ireland, hold their meetings under the republican flag, refuse to pay the police rate, refuse to recognise the King's courts, and withhold all information from the Inland Revenue and other Departments for the purposes of taxation; whether there is any Act of Parliament which compels or authorises the payment of moneys out of public funds to a council which denies the authority of this Parliament; if so, will the Government take steps forthwith to repeal such an Act; and, if not, will payment to this council out of public funds be immediately discontinued?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My attention has been called to a resolution substantially to the effect stated in the first part of the question, reported in the Press to have been passed by the Dublin County Council on the 8th instant. With regard to the remainder of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to the reply given to a question on this subject asked by my hon. and gallant Friend on Thursday last, save that these grants are being made available under the Bill I have recently introduced to pay decrees obtained against local authorities for murders and injuries to property.

Colonel ASHLEY: Until the introduction of the Bill, will the Government cease paying over our money to rebels?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The Bill has been introduced, and I hope will have an early passage into law, and, in the meantime, no money, so far as I know,
is being paid from the Exchequer to recalcitrant county councils.

Captain W. BENN: Do we understand from the right hon. Gentleman that no payments in grants will be made to any county councils in Ireland who have taken action similar to that in the question?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I must have notice of specific county councils in reference to grants.

Captain BENN: You made a general statement.

WATERFORD ASSIZES (JURORS' FINES).

22. Captain FOXCROFT: asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the recent Waterford Assizes fines for non-attendance were inflicted by Mr. Justice Gibson of £100 on grand jurors, £25 on special jurors, and £10 on petty jurors; and whether, seeing that the fines so inflicted fall most heavily on those who are drawn from the classes which are the object of the present reign of terror, the Government intends to enforce payment of the fines in such cases?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given to a somewhat similar question yesterday.

GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN (RAID).

Colonel ASHLEY (by Private Notice): asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the House any information about the raid by 50 armed men on the General Post Office, Dublin, this morning; what was the object of the raid; and were any soldiers or police stationed in the building?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have received the following wire from the Chief Commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police:
At 7.10 a.m. to-day, 15th instant, about 22 armed men entered the Sorting and Mails Department, General Post Office, at Rotunda Rink, Dublin. They held up all the officials and went to the Shute Department Section in the centre of the building and took away the following bags of correspondence. A bag for Secretary, General Post Office. Several bundles of letters for the Accountant, General Post Office. A pouch for the Registrar-General. A sorting box for the
Engineer, General Post Office. A bag for the Local Government Board. A bag for the Surveyor of Taxes, Beresford Place. A bag for the Under-Secretary's Office. Two bundles containing about 50 letters for the Royal Irish Constabulary. One hundred miscellaneous letters for Dublin Castle. Eighty letters for the Vice-Regal Lodge. A bag for the General Prisoners Board. A bag for the Cashier, Irish Command. Three men carried the letters and bags to a motor car which was in waiting at the western side of the square outside the office. A large bag containing the correspondence for the Royal Irish Constabulary was lying on the floor partly under a table in the State Letter Department, and was apparently unnoticed by the raiders. The raiders remained ten minutes in the building, and left at 7.22 a.m. on a signal given by the leader, who blew a whistle. He was the last to leave the premises. He ticked off his men as they left. The premises are entered by gates at the eastern and western sides of the Rotunda, and the raid was carried out simultaneously at each side, the raiders driving the officials into the building before them, and most of them displaying formidable-looking revolvers. When they entered they immediately took possession of the telephones and emergency switches in the building, and so prevented any information being conveyed until the raid was completed. The Superintendent was at his post, and immediately after their leaving telephoned to the police. At the time of the raid there were in all about 150 officials, including postmen and overseers in the premises.

Colonel ASHLEY: There being no guard there, will the hon. Baronet take steps to have a guard in future, and, further, has he any reason to suppose that there was collusion with those inside the Post Office?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As to the second part of the question, I can make no reflection on the service without evidence. As to the part concerning the guard, one of the difficulties in Ireland is to guard all public premises, having regard to the number of constables and military at the disposal of the Irish Government.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the importance of a great building like the Post Office, will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is an adequate guard, either of police or of military, in order to protect the public against these marauders?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the same question that has already been answered.

Mr. PALMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any arrests have been made?

ARRESTS (LIMERICK).

Sir J. D. REES: May I ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he has any information with regard to the arrests of armed men in the district of Limerick?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not given notice of that question.

HUNGARY.

23. Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the report of the Labour delegation to Hungary and, in particular, to the passages reflecting on the British High Commissioner; and whether any Papers can be laid indicating the views of His Majesty's Government on these passages and comments?

The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. I will consider the possibility of laying Papers on this question.

BRITISH INSTITUTE (FLORENCE).

24. Lieut. - Commander HILTON YOUNG: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the tribute paid by the Foreign Office Committee on British Communities Abroad to the very valuable work which is being carried on by the British Institute at Florence, any decision has been arrived at as to the express recommendation of the Committee that the Government should continue to subsidise the Institute; and whether every effort will be made to encourage this and similar institutions which are promoting a good understanding betwen this and other countries?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The recommendation of the Committee has been considered by the Government, who have, however, decided that they are unable to sanction further expenditure by the British Exchequer
upon the support of the Institute. The valuable work carried on by the Institute is fully realised, and every effort is being made to give it all possible assistance other than by a subsidy.

Lieut.-Commander YOUNG: What is the nature of the further assistance?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will give me notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

WAR PRISONERS REPATRIATED.

25. Mr. HANCOCK: asked the Prime Minister whether he can give the numbers and nationalities of war prisoners that have been repatriated through the League of Nations?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): The arrangements which are being made by the League of Nations for the repatriation of prisoners of war have not yet been completed. No ex-prisoners of war, therefore, have yet been transported under the supervision of the League, but it is hoped that 10,000 Bulgarians will shortly be sent back to Bulgaria from Greece, and that many thousands of prisoners of all ex-enemy nationalities, as well as Russians, will be repatriated before the winter.

MANDATES (DRAFTS).

28. Dr. MURRAY: asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet come to a decision as to publishing drafts of the mandates before the terms are finally settled by the Council of the League, in the same way that the Covenant was published before the terms were accepted?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on the 8th July.

Dr. MURRAY: Did not the Prime Minister promise to consider this question, so that the House might have the opportunity to express an opinion upon it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Prime Minister did promise to consider it, and it will be done.

PERMANENT MILITARY COMMISSION.

55. Mr. HOGGE: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state precisely what
are the powers possessed by the British representatives on the permanent advisory commission for military, naval, and air questions set up by the League of Nations, in the matter of communicating the military, naval, and air resources of this country to the commission and of what general nature are the military and naval secrets which those representatives are not permitted to divulge?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave on the 8th July to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.

Captain W. BENN: Are we to understand that we have certain naval and military secrets which we are saving up for the next war?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Any naval secrets we may have we are holding up in the hope there will be no next war.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

MINE-SWEEPING.

26. Commander Viscount CURZON: asked the Prime Minister whether the Allies have obtained any assurance or undertaking that they will complete the sweeping up of mines in the areas allotted to them under the Treaty of Versailles; and, if so, by what date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir. Great Britain and the United States of America have cleared the areas allotted to them; France has nearly done so; Italy has a considerable portion yet to do, and it cannot yet be stated when she will finish; and Germany has given an assurance that she will clear her area, but the date of completion has not yet been fixed.

Captain W. BENN: Would the right hon. Gentleman say who is responsible for sweeping up the mines in the Baltic?

Mr. BONAR LAW: So far as possible we are trying to get those who put them there to remove them.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Including ourselves?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes.

SPA CONFERENCE.

27. Viscount CURZON: asked the Prime Minister whether the Conference at Spa
has as yet reached any agreement or decision with reference to the payment of reparation and trial of War criminals?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Have they reached any conclusion as to the trial?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As a matter of fact I know the subject was discussed at Spa, but I am not in a position to give any details.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

ARAB OFFICIALS.

29. Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: asked the Prime Minister whether under Turkish rule Mesopotamia was largely governed by and through Arab officials at a cost of £3,000,000 a year to the country; and whether he will consider the advisability of economising by returning to the same system?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The House has already been informed of the steps that are being taken with a view to the establishment of an Arab administration. I have nothing to add to the statements that have been made.

OIL.

30. Mr. A. HERBERT: asked the Prime Minister whether a syndicate has been formed with a view to the exploitation of oil at Mosul; and, if so, what are the names of the members?

Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to questions on this subject on 1st and 5th July.

LAND REVENUE SYSTEM.

54. Mr. HOGGE: asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state what are the general features of the land revenue system for Mesopotamia in force under the Turkish Government before the War which have been maintained?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on the 12th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Seaham. I am afraid that it is impossible to deal adequately with the subject in the
Course of a reply to a question. I hope that hon. Members will be content to wait until a decision can be reached as to the publication of a general report.

Colonel Wedgwood: Have any steps been taken to prevent the importation into Mesopotamia of the Zemindar system which has done so much harm in Bengal?

Mr. Bonar Law: There is no intention, as far as I know, of introducing that system.

Colonel Wedgwood: Or of the creation of landlords?

RISING IN RUMEITHA AND SAMAWAH.

Earl WINTERTON (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for War whether rail communication between Basra and Baghdad, which was cut as a result of the recent rising, has yet been repaired; how many British and Indian casualties, respectively, have been caused in the recent fighting, and what losses of war material and rolling stock have resulted from the attacks made by the insurrectionists on the British military armoured and other trains?

57. Brigadier-General SURTEES: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has received any confirmation regarding the attack by Arabs with regard to the cutting of the Baghdad Railway and the isolation of and attack on a considerable body of British forces; whether such Arabs belong to the Arabic rulers who were subsidised by this country and India; and what steps are being taken to prevent serious native uprisings?

127. Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give any further information regarding the operations at Samawah and Rumeitha; what was the strength of the isolated garrison before the outbreak; and whether the sheikh whose arrest led to the rebellion had previously been in receipt of a subsidy from the British administration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. It is understood that there was no British garrison at Rumeitha before the outbreak, but that a company of Indian infantry proceeded there on receiving news of the attack on the Government buildings, and before the
railway was cut. I am informed that there is no reason to connect the rising with Arab rulers who were subsidised by this country or India, and that, as far as is known, the sheikh in question was not in receipt of a subsidy.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that the latest information received is to the following effect: Military operations are in progress, but are hampered by shortage of rolling stock, six trains in all having been captured or derailed between Samawah and Diwaniyah. Detachments at Samawah and Rumeitha are isolated. Line has been cut, in addition, above Diwaniyah, but not seriously. Troops at Rumeitha have suffered heavy casualties, and detachment sent in relief has also suffered severely, and are 15 miles from Rumeitha. I may add that the situation in the Shamiyah district and in the Nasiriyh district is reported to be delicate. It will, of course, be understood that neither of the forces mentioned is a large one. No report of any British casualties has been received to date.

Earl WINTERTON: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that this very serious situation is in operation, namely, that the rail communication is cut between Basra and Baghdad, and has been for several days, and that the forces on the spot are not in a position to repair it, owing to their inferior position to the enemy?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, I think that would be a perfectly fair statement. The railway communication is interrupted at many places on the line, and a large district is in a state of great disorder, and the small local relief column that has so far advanced has not been able to cope with the disorder. A considerable force is now moving downwards from Baghdad. In addition, I have felt it necessary to ask the Indian Government to warn, in case of emergency, further forces to be dispatched to the scene. The communications of the Army in Mesopotamia can, however, to a very large extent, be maintained by the River Euphrates, and are not dependent upon the actual movement of trains along the railways. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that, if sufficient exertion is made, order cannot be fully re-established.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea what caused
this disturbance? Will he consider the appointment of a committee to inquire?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not see how a committee would help at this stage.

An HON. MEMBER: Are some of these casualties due to the very intense heat at the present time, and are proper steps being taken to mitigate the undue effect of the heat?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have given the House all the information in my possession.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the serious nature of the information, whether he will consider the advisability of making a statement at the meeting of the House to-morrow, either by moving the Adjournment at the beginning or at the close, in view of the fact that Baghdad is isolated by rail?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not see what object would be met by making a statement if I have no further information to give. If we have any further information we shall certainly give it.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLAND.

COLOURED TROOPS.

31. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the statements that coloured troops have been employed by the Poles along the Phoskoroff Zherinka railway on the Russian-Polish front; and whether he is in a position to state that no black soldiers have been sent to the assistance of Poland?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on Monday last by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that reply was that his attention had not been called to the statement: is he aware that I have sent him copies of newspapers in which the statement appeared, and can we have some information on this rather important matter?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I was not aware of the source of the information, but my hon. Friend tells me it was a wireless message. On the face of it it seems absurd.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have inquiries been made at all into this?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We are not going to make inquiries into every rumour.

TREATMENT OF JEWS.

62. Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: asked the Lord Privy Seal if the result of the inquiry by Sir Stuart Samuel and Captain P. Wright with regard to the alleged massacres and ill-treatment of Jews in Poland is to show that no grounds exist for the exaggerated reports that have been circulated from German and Bolshevist sources on the subject; if in their Report they state that the Jews in Poland were employed by the Germans to promote and support their tyrannical measures when they invaded Poland in concert with Lenin and Trotsky; and if the terms of the Report and the Government's acceptance of its conclusions have been communicated to the Polish Government?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: In reply to the first and second parts of the question, I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to draw his own deductions from the Report, which has been communicated to the House. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative, though the Polish Government are doubtless in possession of copies of the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

BRITISH PRISONERS.

34. Viscount CURZON: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the acceptance of the British conditions for the resumption of relations with the Soviet Government, he is satisfied that all prisoners held by the Soviet government will be immediately released unconditionally; whether he can state what is the latest information regarding the officers and men of the Royal Navy captured at Baku; whether, if all our prisoners are released to our satisfaction, we will release all Russian prisoners who may be in our hands unless they are offenders against international law; and whether
the resumption of relations with the Soviet Government is to be understood as involving recognition of their Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards the first part of the question, the unconditional release of all British prisoners has been accepted by the Soviet Government as one of the conditions of the resumption of trade. As regards the second part, the most recent information received is still very unsatisfactory, but urgent representations have been made to the Soviet Government on this subject. The reply to the third part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the fourth in the negative.

Viscount CURZON: Arising out of that reply and with reference to the naval prisoners at Baku, may I ask did that information come after the announcement made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday as to the negotiations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no, nothing so recent as that.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How is it possible to enter into these negotiations and invite the Soviet Government to conferences without recognising them?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can probably answer that question as well as I can.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I cannot.

Mr. BONAR LAW: But he is probably aware that in similar circumstances we had trading relations with a country a long time after we had ceased to recognise the Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How long is this foolish attitude going to be continued—this extremely foolish and undignified attitude?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I quite recognise that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is an authority on matters that are foolish.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I have been right anyhow?

Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that if he makes interruptions and interjections I shall have to ask him to leave the House. As he is here as a representative, he must behave himself properly.

ARMISTICE PROPOSALS AND TRADE RELATIONS.

40. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: asked the Prime Minister whether the suggestion has been made by His Majesty's Government that the Polish troops shall fall back to a line laid down by the Allies as the Eastern Frontier of Poland, and that the Russian troops shall fall back 50 kilometres to the east of this line; what guarantees against renewed attacks have been offered to the Russian Government; whether the proposed armistice terms have yet been accepted; and whether this intervention constitutes de facto and de jure recognition of the present Russian Government?

49. Mr. PALMER: asked the Prime Minister whether he can inform the House of the terms of the communication made to the Russian Government concerning the suggested Armistice with Poland; whether, failing the acquiescence of the Soviet authorities, any alternative to an Armistice has been suggested; and whether this alternative has been presented in the name of the Allies as distinct from the British Government?

58. Mr. LEONARD LYLE: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Russian authorities have accepted the conditions put forward by the British Government as a basis for negotiations with regard to trade; what these conditions are; whether a Soviet delegation is to be sent to this country to deal with political questions in addition, or whether any suggestion to that end has been put forward by the Soviet authorities; what is the point of view of the British Government on this aspect of the matter; and what is the estimated amount of the British commercial claims against the Soviet Government?

60. Captain W. BENN: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the proposals for an Armistice with Russia include the hostilities at present being carried on by General Wrangel?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the very full statement which I made yesterday.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the second part of my question as to what guarantees
against renewed attacks have been offered to the Russian Government?

Mr. BONAR LAW: It is true that that was not specifically answered, but it is obviously a question that I cannot answer.

Mr. PALMER: May I have an answer to the last part of my question? Is it not a fact that yesterday it was stated that the message was sent with the knowledge and approval of our Allies, and are they taking joint responsibility if we have to go to war with Russia, and will they help us if there is a new war?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I understand it, they are acting entirely with us in this matter.

Captain BENN: How can you extract a pledge on which you intend to rely from a Government which you do not recognise?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is one of the difficulties.

Mr. LYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what were the conditions?

Mr. BONAR LAW: They were contained in the reply which I gave yesterday.

NORTHERN RUSSIA (BLUE BOOK).

63. Captain W. BENN: asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Blue Book on Northern Russia will be published; and whether it will contain the telegram from the War Secretary to General Knox of May or June, 1919?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot say at present when the Blue Book will be published. The collection of papers has already begun. It is too early to say what the Blue Book will contain.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

PUNJAB DISTURBANCES.

35. Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the fact that the Secretary of State for India was not informed of the details of the occurrences in April, 1919, until December of that year, he proposes to take any steps to censure the Government of India for this failure to keep the
Imperial Government informed of the events referred to; and whether he will cause all written messages and telegrams on the subject to be published?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The reasons why full details of occurrences connected with the suppression of the disturbances were not elicited until the Committee appointed to investigate them commenced its inquiry have been repeatedly explained by question and answer in this House. No question of censure arises. The position is clearly stated in paragraph 22 of the Government of India's despatch on the Hunter Report, and their conclusions on this point, amongst others, were accepted by His Majesty's Government. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not the fact that the Secretary of State was not fully informed, and if this is so, is it not imperative that the Indian Government should keep the Secretary of State informed on all details of these serious matters in India?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is a matter which has been discussed, not only in question and answer, but in Debate, and I have nothing to add to what has been said.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STAFFS AND ACCOMMODATION.

MARRIED WOMEN.

38. Mr. HURD: asked the Prime Minister whether he will order a Return to be prepared showing the number of married women whose husbands are also at work on the permanent and temporary staffs of the various Government Departments; how many of these have husbands also employed in the various Departments; and the number of this latter class who have been transferred to the permanent staffs since the outbreak of War?

Mr. BALDWIN: This question is one which will doubtless be considered by the Committee which is being set up to inquire into the arrangements for the employment of ex-service men in Government Departments, whether on
a temporary or permanent footing. It will be for the Committee to say what information is required for the purposes of their inquiry.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause to be conveyed to the Committee the view of the Government that married women whose husbands are in receipt of State pay should give way to discharged soldiers?

Mr. BALDWIN: When my hon. Friend learns the composition of the Committee he will, I think, feel confident that no point relevant to the question will be overlooked.

STATIONERY OFFICE.

65. Mr. T. THOMSON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of the Stationery Office in 1913–14, and what is the estimated cost for 1920–21; which of the present offices were not in existence in 1913–14; what is the estimated cost of each of these in 1920–21; and whether any serious public inconvenience would result if the number of offices or departments was reduced to the pre-War standard?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For the answer to the first and second parts of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the particulars given in the White Paper recently published on present and pre-War expenditure. In considering the total of the present year's estimate the new charge under the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and the greatly increased costs of labour and material have to be borne in mind. I will arrange for the hon. Member to be furnished with a list of the offices and buildings which have been taken over by the Stationery Office since 1913–14.
In regard to the last part of the question, the activities of the Stationery Office as a supply Department, and consequently the number of offices required for the carrying out of its work, depend in the main on the demands made on it by Parliament and by Government Departments. Every effort is made to check unreasonable demands, but it is impossible to effect arbitrary reduction in the Department without reference to the requirements of the Government service as a whole.

WEST AFRICA (CURRENCY).

36. Mr. STEWART: asked the Prime Minister whether the introduction of a paper currency in West Africa has caused the old silver coinage to be hoarded and to disappear from circulation; whether a new token currency is being coined in this country, and shipped out there, similar in colour to brass; whether these new coins are to replace the old copper coinage or the former silver coinage; if the latter, do they fulfil the stipulation in the recent Coinage Bill that they contain 50 per cent. of pure silver; and whether, in view of the reduced price of silver, he can see his way to restore the silver coinage to its pre-War fineness with a view to preserving the old belief of the natives in the soundness of British money?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is hardly possible to say how far the introduction of notes has accentuated the tendency to hoard silver coins in British West Africa, which dates back to a period long before the introduction of paper currency. As regards the second part, the new alloy coins are substitutes for the West African silver coins, or for the paper notes of similar denominations, which have been found not to be altogether suitable to African conditions. As regards third part, the Coinage Act, 1920, does not apply to this coinage. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. STEWART: Have the Africans got bad money because they have no influence in this House? In view of the fact that the Indians have been able to retain their pre-War standard of rupee, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman not see his way to put both Africans and Indians on an equally fair footing?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: How much have the British Government made out of this change in coinage, and do they realise that it has been made purely at the expense of the African negro?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: Obviously, I cannot answer the latter question. As to that of my hon. Friend (Mr. Stewart). I have answered the first part in my reply; as to the second, I will represent what he has said to the proper Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY.

ALLIED GARRISONS.

37. Mr. LYLE: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the acceptance by the Turkish Government of the Peace Treaty, the Allies intend to call on the Turkish Government to co-operate in the suppression of the revolt against Allied garrisons?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The Turkish Government have not yet accepted the Peace Treaty.

NATIONALIST PRISONERS.

41. Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: asked the Prime Minister whether the Greeks executed a large number of Turkish Nationalist prisoners after the capture of Balikari; and, if so, will the Government secure the punishment of those responsible for this massacre?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no information as to any such incident.

MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICERS (EMPLOYMENT).

32. Sir JOHN BUTCHER: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the number of mercantile marine captains and officers who have served in ships managed by or for the Ministry of Shipping who are now out of employment on account of these ships having been sold or otherwise disposed of; whether the Government will consider the possibility of granting these captains and officers a certain amount of leave on pay to enable them to tide over the period that they will be out of employment before obtaining berths again; and whether, in the event of such a decision being arrived at, he will consider making it retrospective and making the amount of any such leave on pay vary according to the officer's age, circumstances, and prospects of re-employment?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. This matter has already received attention, and the sanction of the Treasury was obtained in April last to the payment, ex gratiâ, and after investigation, of an amount not exceeding two months' pay to captains, officers and engineers, whose employment terminated
owing to the sale of vessels in respect of which the Shipping Controller is in the position of owner. Furthermore, it will interest the hon. Member to know that over a year ago steps were initiated for the establishment of a scheme to relieve distress amongst masters and officers of the mercantile marine due to unemployment arising out of the War, and the fund is administered by a committee containing representatives of the officers' associations.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

43. Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Prime Minister whether it has yet been decided to give a day's Debate for the discussion of the general question of Government expenditure?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I should welcome such a discussion, but I see no prospect of it at present except on a Supply day.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is this question not considered as being of equal importance with the other questions for which facilities have been afforded for Debate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: That is quite true. I should prefer to see that subject discussed, but it does not depend upon us on Supply day, and I see no other opportunity for it.

44. Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: asked the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider his decision not to invite the Treasury to frame alternative estimates of the national income.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I can add nothing to the answer given to my hon. Friend on the 29th June.

Mr. Locker-Lampson: If the Government do not know and cannot find out what the income is, how can they find out the proper limit of their expenditure?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My hon. Friend knows that neither the Government nor anybody else can give an accurate estimate of the national expenditure.

Mr. Locker-Lampson: Will the Treasury present an alternative estimate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: What is the advantage of an alternative estimate?

Captain W. BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman put the House in possession of such information as the Treasury possess as to the national income?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ascertain if there is any advantage in giving the estimates which have been made.

BRITISH FIRMS (FOREIGN CONTROL).

48. Colonel NEWMAN: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the recent passing under foreign control of British firms, such as Boots and Company; whether any licence or sanction of a Government Department has first to be obtained; and, if not, whether danger of unfair competition to the small trader and monopoly and consequent high prices to the public renders some safeguard advisable?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have been asked to answer this question. I have seen Press statements as to the particular transaction to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, but no licence or authorisation from any Government Department is necessary in such a case. As regards the last part of the question, I can only say developments of this kind will be carefully watched.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we have any sort of guarantee that this last new combine will not arrange to squeeze out all the small traders by refusing to deal with them, as was the case with the tobacco monopoly?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I will refer that point to the Board of Trade.

OFFICERS (STATUTORY RIGHTS).

50. Commander BELLAIRS: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government adhere to the exposition of the law by the Lord Chancellor when, as Attorney-General, on 12th July, 1917, he laid down, in connection with the Report of the Mesopotamia Commission, the statutory rights of an officer protecting him from punishment on the report of an inquiry which did not comply with the statutory rights this officer possessed under the law?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The statement referred to in the question was perfectly correct, and applies still to the cases with which it is concerned. It has no relation to cases where all that is in question is the exercise of an administrative discretion.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not a fact that General Dyer was punished by the British and Indian Governments and deprived of his command on the Report of the Hunter Committee, which did not comply with the statutory powers?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to which my hon. Friend refers has reference to the legal rights, and the legal rights do not apply.

Commander BELLAIRS: Was it not directly stated that they were taking action on the Report of the Hunter Committee?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We were taking action in the ordinary way.

ANGLO-JAPANESE TREATY.

51. Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will lay the correspondence with the Australian Government in connection with the Anglo-Japanese Treaty?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Lieut.-Colonel Amery): I have been asked to reply to the question of the hon. and gallant Member. The answer is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why do they decline to lay this correspondence?

Lieut.-Colonel AMERY: For reasons which are sufficiently obvious.

52. Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Anglo-Japanese Treaty is being continued automatically without any further action on the part of the Government; whether it is proposed to continue it without modifications; and whether he will give an opportunity for the matter to be discussed before the automatic renewal of the Treaty comes into Force?

61. Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether according to Article VI. of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty of 1911, unless either party gives notice before 13th July, 1920, of its intention to
terminate the Treaty, the Treaty will automatically be renewed; whether the Government have come to any decision to give or to refrain from giving such notice; and, if so, will he state the nature of the decision?

83. Mr. CLOUGH: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the outcome of the interchange of views between Great Britain and Japan on the subject of the renewal of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: A joint communication with regard to the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of 1911 has been made by the Governments of Japan and Great Britain to the League of Nations. This communication, which is dated 8th July. is as follows:
The Governments of Great Britain and Japan have come to the conclusion that the Anglo-Japanese Agreement of 13th July, 1911, now existing between the two countries, though in harmony with the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations, is not entirely consistent with the letter of that Covenant, which both Governments earnestly desire to respect. They accordingly have the honour jointly to inform the League that they recognise the principle that, if the said Agreement be continued after July, 1921, it must be in a form which is not inconsistent with that Covenant.
I am unable to make any further statement on this subject at present.

Mr. MACLEAN: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in submitting this matter to the League of Nations, attention has been drawn to the manner in which the terms of the Treaty have already been broken by Japan in her aggressive action in regard to territory in China; and whether the League of Nations has been communicated with in regard to handing that land back?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think in a matter of such supreme importance my hon. Friend should give me notice.

Mr. MACLEAN: Has the Government got the full details of the aggressions of Japan which took place after the formation of the demands made upon China?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think I should be given full and due notice of any further questions.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why has the statement which has just
been read out been published in the Press this morning before we have had it in this House?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The League of Nations is not a body amenable to the jurisdiction of this House, and it makes public statements on its own authority.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS (POSTMASTER-GENERAL).

56. Earl WINTERTON: asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the importance of the Department in question, it can he arranged for questions addressed to the Postmaster-General to be answered early on one day each week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I understand that arrangements have been made to give questions addressed to the Postmaster-General an earlier place on Tuesdays, and I hope that this will meet the convenience of my Noble Friend and of the House.

BOARD OF EDUCATION ESTIMATES.

64. Sir J. BUTCHER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Estimates for the administration of the Board of Education for the present financial year are £376,000 as against £286,000 for last year, for inspection and examination £361,000 for this year as against £274,000 for last year, and for the total Education Vote £45,755,000 for this year as against £32,772,000 for last year, he will set up a Committee to investigate the expenditure of the Board of Education in addition to the seven other Departments for which Committees are to be set up?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I understand that a Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on National Expenditure is now examining the Board of Education Estimates, and in these circumstances I do not think that the immediate appointment of another Committee is desirable.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the fact that the expenditure of this Department is enormous over £37,000,000, and many Members consider a great deal of it wasteful and extravagant, will the right hon. Gentleman treat this Department
in the same way as he has treated seven other Departments, for which Committees have been appointed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. The seven Departments referred to are not now being examined by the National Expenditure Committee. To appoint another Committee to do work which is actually being done by the National Expenditure Committee would obviously be not merely a waste of time, but destructive of the useful results from either. As I understand it, my hon. and learned Friend desires an inquiry, not into their staff and administrative organisation, but one into the whole policy of the Board of Education. If that is so, he should address his question to the Minister concerned.

Sir F. HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the fact that, according to information obtained, it is expected that the Education Estimates for next year will exceed £73,000,000?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have only too much reason to bear in mind both the past, present, and prospective expenditure.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is undesirable at this stage to embark on an Education Debate.

67. Sir J. BUTCHER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, comparing the sum of £58,700,000, being the educational expenditure of the United Kingdom for the year 1920–21, with the sum of £73,000,000, being the estimated educational expenditure for a normal year, he will state how much of the £14,300,000 increase is due to the increase of teachers' salaries and pensions, and under what heads the rest of the increase falls?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: It is obviously not practicable to give detailed estimates of the cost of particular educational services for some years in advance. It was necessary for the purposes of the White Paper to attempt a forecast of the total expenditure at the date when War services will have stopped. The figure of £73,000,000 was reached after considering all the circumstances which seemed relevant.

Sir J. BUTCHER: In view of the suggestion that the greater part of the £14,000,000 increase is due to the increase of the teachers' salaries, will the right hon. Gentleman say how much is actually due to that?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. My hon. and learned Friend is really pressing me for details which I cannot be expected to be in a position to give. I was asked to provide an estimate for the normal year. I did it to the best of my ability. I cannot forecast at a moment's notice the expenditure two or three years in advance with that kind of accuracy which is expected in an Annual Vote.

Sir F. HALL: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot go into items and see how much is allocated to each, how can he reasonably arrive at the estimate of £73,000,000 without the figures?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already told the House that the figures given for a normal year will never be the figures of any particular year. That is obvious. The use of that Paper is to give the House and the country some measure by which they can mark the growth of expenditure and the prospects of the future and can see the result of the action they take now.

Captain LOSEBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware we have only had two hours' discussion on education in the past twenty months and will the House be given an opportunity to discus educational policy at an early date?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that directly arises out of what has been said. At any rate, it is not a question for me.

85. Colonel NEWMAN: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, apart from the rise in the Education Vote from £18,760,000 in 1914–15 to £52,600,000 in the current financial year, he can give the House an estimate of the corresponding rise in the rate levied for educational purposes by the local authorities in Great Britain?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Fisher): The Vote of the Board of Education, which is concerned only with England and Wales, was, for 1914–15, £15,245,621. For 1920–21 it is £45,755,567. In 1914–15 the sum required
from the rates for education (elementary and higher) in England and Wales was £16,860,000. In the year 1920–21 the local education authorities in England and Wales are, according to the figures supplied by them, raising £31,716,717 by rates. For the figures relating to Scotland, the hon. and gallant Member should address inquiries to my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has protested with regard to this enormous expenditure?

LAND REGISTRY.

66. Mr. LORDEN: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that deeds and documents left at the Land Registry for registration take from five to six weeks before the land certificate is issued; and, as this seriously interferes with the free exchange of land and other property, will he take steps to prevent this unreasonable delay?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): I am asked to reply to this question. Upon inquiry I am informed that the figures are not as represented. On the contrary, out of 5,021 applications of all kinds reaching the office in June, 3,292 were completed in an average period of about 10 days; 688 were completed in about 16 days; the remainder (of various kinds, including 492 applications for Absolute Title, in most of which a month's public notice is required, besides a careful investigation of the documents, and 391 applications lodged in imperfect form or involving correspondence) were completed in periods averaging 27 to 45 days.

Mr. LORDEN: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider some information I will send him?

Sir G. HEWART: Certainly, with pleasure.

EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

73. Mr. MILLS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of excess profits made in each of the years 1915 to 1920 as indicated in the total gross assessments to excess profits duty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Precise information on this subject is not available, and the following estimates must be regarded as subject to a certain margin of error. The aggregate net excess profits which have been or will be assessed on businesses liable to Excess Profits Duty (after deduction of the statutory allowances for which the Excess Profits Duty Acts provide) are estimated as follows:

Accounting period ended
Million pounds.


after 4th August, 1914, and before 1st April, 1917
600


(No allocation of this amount to the financial years covered is available.)



in the financial year ended:



31st March, 1918
420


31st March, 1919
460


31st March, 1920
500

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

CIVIL ADMINISTRATION.

74. Sir F. HALL: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any provision is made in the Votes for the current financial year for expenditure connected with the administration of Palestine; and, if so, what is the amount and under what Vote is it included?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No provision is made on Civil Votes for the civil administration of Palestine. Military and air expenditure is borne on Army and Air Votes respectively. I would, however, draw the attention of the hon. and gallant Member to the item £100 on Subhead E on page 96 of the Army Estimates.

FRONTIERS.

80. Mr. RAPER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any negotiations are in progress for the purpose of establishing permanent northern and eastern frontiers for Palestine?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. RAPER: Will the hon. Gentleman say with whom these negotiations have taken place?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Between the British and French Governments.

Mr. RAPER: Is it known what the attitude of the Arab Government will be?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I should have notice of that question.

NATIONAL AND MUNICIPAL LOANS.

75. Mr. SUGDEN: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in his efforts to cheapen the cost of national, municipal, and housing loans; and if conferences have yet been called into operation or recommended on the matter, such conferences to be constituted in personnel of commercial men, bankers, civic treasurers, and Treasury representatives?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Arrangements are made by the Committee, of which Sir Harry Goschen is Chairman, to minimise the danger of undue competition among local authorities for loans.

Mr. SUGDEN: Has any recommendation been received to reduce the bank rate?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAYS (STATE GUARANTEE).

76. Mr. PALMER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether claims made under the State guarantee to the railways are, in the first instance, considered and determined by the financial department of the Ministry of Transport; in what circumstances such claims are remitted to the Treasury; and whether the final appeal is to the Railway and Canal Traffic Commissioners?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Claims are investigated and considered, both technically and from an audit point of view, by the Ministry of Transport in conjunction with the Committee of Railway Accountants and also the Government Consulting Accountants. Before paying the claims, the Ministry of Transport consults the Treasury whenever the authority of that Department is necessary, and the closest touch is maintained between the two Departments. Under the Railway Agree-
ments any question between the Government and the companies as to the amount of the deficiency may, in default of agreement, be determined by the Railway and Canal Commission.

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANY.

77. Mr. PALMER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the House the name of the railway company that has put forward a claim analogous to that of the North Eastern Railway Company, which is asserting its right to charge to the Exchequer the £50,000 paid to the Minister of Transport; and whether he will lay upon the Table the agreement of the said company made with its servant and the correspondence which has passed since 1916 between the company and the Government wherein it is contended that the payment should be met by the British taxpayer?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The company is the Metropolitan District Railway Company, which is claiming to charge against the Government their proportion of a commuted annuity paid to their late managing director in 1916 by the group of undertakings to which that railway belongs. As the Government contention is that any payment made under the agreement is not chargeable against the Government guarantee, and is a matter for settlement between the company and its officer, I have not thought it necessary or desirable to ask for a copy of it. I ought, perhaps, to add, since the hon. Member's question might convey a different impression, that the similar payment by the North Eastern Railway to their deputy general manager was made by the company before my right hon. Friend accepted the post of Minister of Transport.

Mr. PALMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this payment was made when the ex-Deputy Manager was a Member of the Government and a Minister of the Crown?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, I am informed that that is not so.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: in view of the fact that the company generously attempted to charge this sum to the taxpayer, may I ask whether the Government adhere to the opinion expressed by
my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that this was a matter which should not have been brought before the House?

Mr. PALMER: Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the strictures passed by the Leader of the House upon the hon. Gentleman opposite for having the courage to bring the matter before the House?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure I never passed any strictures.

Mr. McNE1LL: Is not my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House aware that he expressed his regret that I had mentioned it?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As I understood the circumstances, and as I understand them now, they did not affect the House of Commons or the country in the least, and it was not really an improper agreement.

WAGONS (FRANCE AND BELGIUM).

92. Sir WILLIAM SEAGER: asked the Minister of Transport whether there are any British-owned railway wagons still in use in France and Belgium; and, if so, will he consider the expeditious return of these wagons, in view of the shortage on our own railways?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON (Parliamentary Secretary, War Office): I have been asked to reply. There are now less than 6,000 British railway wagons still in France and Belgium, of types suitable for use in this country. A considerable number of these are in a damaged condition and arrangements are in hand for their return to this country for repair. The balance are still in use and are being returned as rapidly as circumstances permit. They have been coming over at the rate of about 400 a week.

Sir W. SEAGER: Will the hon. Gentleman expedite the return of these wagons as the miners say they could give us more coal if they had more wagons?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: Only to-day I gave instructions to do everything possible to expedite the return of the wagons, but many of them are in a damaged state and cannot run on their own wheels to the steamer. Others are dispersed all over France.

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY (OVER CROWDING).

94. Mr. A. SHORT: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the local Great Western Railway trains running between Birmingham and Wolverhampton, especially on a morning and evening, are overcrowded, as many as 24 persons crowding into each compartment; and will he take action to see that the services are augmented or extra carriages put on?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal): My attention has not previously been drawn to this matter, but I am having inquiry made of the railway company concerned, and the hon. Member shall be informed of the result.

OIL-BURNING LOCOMOTIVES.

95. Major GODFREY PALMER: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the House any information regarding the results of the recent experiments in oil-burning locomotives?

Mr. NEAL: The Great Central Railway have recently carried out tests on locomotives burning colloidal fuel, which is composed of 60 per cent. coal dust and 40 per cent. oil. Technical figures relating to comparative efficiency have been received, but the fuel consumption and cost as compared with coal have not been given. The Great Western Railway stated in January last that is was proposed to fit one of the company's locomotives for burning liquid fuel, but no report as to the result of the test has yet come to hand. Liquid fuel has been used extensively on locomotives ever since 1886, and the reason that it is no longer used in any quantity is that it is not economical to do so; further, it is doubtful whether oil will ever be supplied in sufficient quantity, and at a low enough price, to warrant a change over being made on the railways in this country.

RAILWAY FARES.

96. Mr. HAYDAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether it is the intention of the Government to increase railway fares; and, if so, can he state the amount of increase and the date when these increases are to be put into force?

Mr. NEAL: I would refer the hon. Member to Command Paper 815 and to
the replies given to a similar question by the hon. Member for South Molton on the 12th July. The Government is most desirous of causing as little inconvenience as possible, consistently with the principle that the railways must be put upon what is estimated to be a self-supporting basis. It is not proposed to increase the charge for ordinary tickets before the 5th August, which will meet the case of the Bank Holiday traffic.

Mr. CLYNES: Will the hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that a very large number of the working classes have to take their holidays during August?

Mr. WATERSON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these men are compelled to take their holidays at that period in order to meet the needs of industry and the calls upon it?

Mr. NEAL: Yes; the Government are fully aware of the inconvenience of increasing the railway fares during the holiday period, but the longer the increase is delayed the greater the amount of it must be if the necessary funds are to be raised within the period which is open.

Mr. C. PALMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that while the working classes in many cases can afford to pay these extra fares it is the vast middle classes who will suffer most?

Mr. R. McNEILL: May I ask the Leader of the House, in view of the answer which has been given, will the House adjourn for the Recess before 5th August?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no such hope.

Dr. D. MURRAY: Will the business principle be applied that the more miles you take the cheaper the miles will be?

MONTENEGRO (RELIEF MISSION).

78. Mr. R. McNEILL: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the wide publicity that has been given on the Continent of Europe to the forcible stoppage of the Glasgow Relief Mission to Montenegro by the Serbian authorities and the manner in which the incident is cited as proof of the contempt with which
the British Government is treated in the Adriatic; and whether, in view of the damage caused to British prestige by the Government's indifference to the fate of the mission and the probable loss of valuable property subscribed for by British charity, he will reconsider his decision to do nothing diplomatically or otherwise to remove the Serbian obstruction to the distribution of relief to the perishing Montenegrins?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply I returned to my hon. and learned Friend on the 7th July.

Mr. McNEILL: As the hon. Gentleman says, in reply to the first part of the question, that he is not aware of this incident, may I ask whether it is the case that the Foreign Office have no means of knowing what appears to be widely published in the Continental Press?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As far as I know, we have not received any information to the effect stated by my hon. and learned Friend in the first part of the question.

Mr. McNEILL: Does not that arise from the fact that the Foreign Office do not read the foreign newspapers?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir; we are constantly reading the foreign newspapers.

Mr. A. HERBERT: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of publishing a report?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press that.

SYRIA (FRENCH ADMINISTRA TION).

81. Mr. RAPER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what precisely is the extent of French administrative jurisdiction in Syria; and whether any measures have so far been taken by the French Government for the extension of that area?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am not in a position to state the precise extent of
French administrative jurisdiction in Syria, for which country the French Government have received a Mandate from the Supreme Council.

CONVICTS (COST).

86. Mr. SWAN: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present average cost of convicts exclusive of cost of building and inclusive of cost of buildings?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Baird): The average annual cost is £111 1s. 3d. This is exclusive of the cost of new buildings. If that be included an addition of £2 2s. 5d. would have to be made. Full details will be found in Appendix 9 of the Annual Report of the Directors of Convict Prisons, 1918–1919, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

GERMANS (LANDING RESTRIC TIONS).

87. Mr. GILBERT: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of Germans who have been allowed to enter and reside in Great Britain since peace was signed; the number that have been permitted to enter during the present year; if any conditions are imposed on such persons; and what those conditions are?

Sir J. BAIRD: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Newcastle-on-Tyne (Mr. Doyle) on the 8th June last, in which he stated that up till the end of December, 1919, practically no Germans were admitted to this country except British-born wives or widows and their children. The figures for the first six months of this year are 2,885 Germans. Included in this total are, 1,002 British-born wives or widows and children, also the husbands and fathers of British-born families permitted to return by the Advisory Committee under Section 10 (4) of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, and a certain number of Germans resident in this country and returning after a short visit abroad. On all the rest, that is to say, on all the now comers,
a condition is imposed on being permitted to land, that they report forthwith to the police and remain in this country only for a limited time, as prescribed by Section 10 (1) of the Act of 1919.

88. Mr. GILBERT: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if German commercial travellers and agents are now allowed to enter this country; if so, on what conditions and for what Period of time; if such persons require to have their passports vised by British consuls or other British officials in Germany; if they require to give any notice to the police in this country; and whether on their return they require permits or their passports vised in this country?

Sir J. BAIRD: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," in proper cases. To the second part, that the conditions and period of time vary according to the circumstances of each case; the Statute prescribes a maximum of three months in the first instance. To the third, the answer is "Yes." To the fourth, that such persons are landed on condition that they report forthwith to the police and report all temporary changes of address to the police. To the last paragraph, that no permit or British visa is required for the return journey, but their departure from the United Kingdom is carefully checked to see that the period of their stay in this country is duly observed.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there any record kept, as provided by the Act, of the special reasons for which these Germans are allowed to come to this country?

Sir J. BAIRD: Each case is considered on its merits.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is there a record kept and published?

Sir J. BAIRD: All the records are kept at the Home Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

SURPLUS STORES (ANDRUICQ, FRANCE).

98. Mr. LORDEN: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what is the value of the surplus stores still unsold at Andruicq, in
France; how much has been moved or disposed of since the Armistice; and what staff is employed watching these decaying stores?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. James Hope): Approximately 170 men are at present employed in guarding the remaining stores and valuable plant at Andruicq. With regard to the other parts of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire on Monday last.

Mr. LORDEN: Is it a fact that no, stores have been sold at all, and that the £90,000 that went was given away?

Mr. HOPE: No. I think I said in my answer the other day that of the stores which had been declared surplus to military requirements about 40 per cent. had been sold.

Sir F. HALL: Does the hon. Baronet admit that there is a staff employed in watching decaying stores?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: No, Sir.

CIVIL SERVICE (AGE LIMIT).

99. Mr. HANCOCK: asked the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has yet been come to as to the making of provision towards meeting the case of candidates for the Civil Service who have been adversely affected by the alteration of the age limit?

Mr. BALDWIN: The question whether it is possible to make any provision for the candidates referred to is still under consideration.

CHINA (BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Sir F. HALL (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any information about the present situation in China, in view of the disturbing reports. which have been received, and if he will state whether any special measures have been adopted to secure the safety of British residents there, as has been done by other nations?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot usefully supplement the reports which have
already appeared in the Press regarding the general situation. As regards the latter part of the question, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires reported in a telegram dated the 11th of this month that he was in communication with the admiral in command on the China Station, and that British troops were, at his request, returning from their summer quarters at Shanhaikuan to Tientsin, as a precautionary measue. He also stated that the Diplomatic Body had addressed a Note to the Chinese Government, expressing the hope that fighting in Peking itself would be avoided, if possible, and said that a Presidential mandate was expected enjoining protection of foreign life and property.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is any rioting in Hankow?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Not without notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the Leader of the House state what business will be taken next week?

Mr. BONAR LAW: On Monday, the Unemployment Insurance Bill, Third Reading; Money Resolution of the Telegraph Bill; Nauru Island Bill, Third Reading; and other Orders if possible.

Tuesday: Indemnity (Recommitted) Bill, Committee; Ministry of Food Bill; and, if possible, other Orders.

Thursday: Supply, Post Office.

I would rather leave the business for Wednesday to be stated on Monday.

Sir D. MACLEAN: In regard to the Motion standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman with respect to proceedings on the War Pensions Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is hardly fair to the Opposition or to the friendly critics of the Bill that this should be the only notice that is given to them, that they should come to the House on a Supply day, which they know is devoted solely to business of Supply, and be faced with this Motion for the first time, that it is proposed to take this very important measure, if possible, before eleven o'clock, and, if not, after eleven o'clock? Would it not have been better
to give, through the usual channels, the usual courteous notice of the intention of the Government in regard to a matter of this importance?

Mr. BONAR LAW: As regards taking the Bill after 11 o'clock, the House must realise that unless they co-operate with the Government and get through business it will be very long before we have the Adjournment. It will be necessary to take more business after 11 o'clock if we are to have the Adjournment at a reasonable time. The War Pensions Bill has been on the Paper for a long time, and my Noble Friend (Lord E. Talbot) tells me that it was really by accident that he did not mention it through the usual channels yesterday. He regrets that that was not done.

Captain W. BENN: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask your ruling with regard to the Motion in the name of the Leader of the House. It consists of two questions. Standing Order No. 1, paragraph (7), lays down in precise words the way in which a Motion for the Suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule may be put to the House and decided without Amendment or Debate. Standing Order 15, paragraph (5), lays it down that a Motion may be made that business other than business of Supply may be taken on a Supply day, without Amendment or Debate. Is it proper that both these questions should be put together in an omnibus Resolution of this kind? Should not the question be put separately from the Chair?

Mr. SPEAKER: If it will suit the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I will put the question in two parts.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the discussion will be taken on the Report of the National Expenditure Committee concerning St. Omer.

Mr. BONAR LAW: I believe it has been arranged through the usual channels that one Supply Day will be taken for that purpose, but the particular day has not yet been fixed.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Pensions Increase Bill will be taken?

Mr. BONAR LAW: We hope to take it next week.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Proceedings on the War Pensions Bill be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order

(Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

The House divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 52.

Division No 216.]
AYES.
[4.0 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Glyn, Major Ralph
Mount, William Arthur


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Goff, Sir R. Park
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Amery, Lieut.-Col. Leopold C. M. S.
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Murray, Lieut.-Colonel A. (Aberdeen)


Armitage, Robert
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Greig, Colonel James William
Murray, Major William (Dumfries)


Atkey, A. R.
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Neal, Arthur


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Barnston, Major Harry
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Barton, Sir William (Oldham)
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Bellairs, Commander Canyon W.
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Bethell, Sir John Henry
Hickman, Brig.-General Thomas E.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Betterton, Henry B.
Hinds, John
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bigland, Alfred
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.


Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn,W.)
Raper, A. Baldwin


Blair, Reginald
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Remer, J. R.


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Renwick, George


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Howard, Major S. G.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Briggs, Harold
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Hurd, Percy A.
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Brown, Captain D. C.
Illingworth, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bruton, Sir James
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Jesson, C.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seager, Sir William


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Johnstone, Joseph
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Butcher, Sir John George
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Casey, T. W.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Chadwick, Sir Robert
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Stevens, Marshall


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A.(Birm.,W.)
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Stewart, Gershom


Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Sturrock, J. Long


Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Lane-Fox, G. R.
Sugden, W. H.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Surtees, Brigadier-General H. C.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sutherland, Sir William


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Talbot, G. A. (Hemel Hempstead)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lister, Sir R. Ashton
Taylor, J.


Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Lloyd, George Butler
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Corn. O. (H'tlngd'n)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Lorden, John William
Wallace, J.


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Waring, Major Walter


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.


Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Wason, John Cathcart


Duncannon, Viscount
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Wheler, Lieut.-Colonel C. H.


Edwards, Alien C. (East Ham, S.)
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Whitla, Sir William


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Edwards, John H. (Glam., Meath)
Macmaster, Donald
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Fell, Sir Arthur
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Fildes, Henry
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Wilson, Lieut.-Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Marriott, John Arthur Ransome
Winterton, Major Earl


FitzRoy, Captain Hon. E. A.
Martin, Captain A. E.
Wood, Hon. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Matthews, David
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E
Mitchell, William Lane
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Gardiner, James
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Gardner, Ernest
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Morris, Richard
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley Ward.


Gilbert, James Daniel
Morrison, Hugh



Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.



NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Bottomley, Horatio W.
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cape, Thomas


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Crooks, Rt. Hon. William
Kiley, James D.
Sitch, Charles H.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sugden, W. H.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Swan, J. E.


Finney, Samuel
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Galbraith, Samuel
Mills, John Edmund
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Waterson, A. E.


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Grundy, T. W.
Myers, Thomas
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Wignall, James


Hallas, Eldred
O'Grady, Captain James
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Hancock, John George
Palmer, Charles Frederick (Wrekin)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hartshorn, Vernon
Rattan, Peter Wilson



Hayday, Arthur
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hodge, Rt. Hon. John
Rose, Frank H.
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Hogge.


Irving, Dan
Sexton, James

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the War Pensions Bill may, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, be taken before Eleven of the clock.—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

BILL PRESENTED.

PROTECTION OF YOUNG PERSONS BILL,

"(to make further provision for the protection of persons under the age of twenty-one years from sexual immorality and from conduct akin thereto or connected therewith, and to amend Sections fifty-eight and fifty-nine of the Children Act, 1908, and for purposes relating to the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. WIGNALL; supported by Mr. Frederick Hall, Mr. Tyson Wilson, and Mr. Neil Maclean; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 28th July, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Amendments to—

Folkestone Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Tredegar Urban District Council Bill.

Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill.

Nottingham Corporation Bill.

Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Royal Charters and Acts of Parliament relating to the Royal Bank of Scotland; and to confer further powers on the Bank." [Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords].

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Llanelly in relation to their water-
works undertaking; and for other purposes." [Llanelly Corporation Water Bill [Lords.]

Royal Bank of Scotland Bill [Lords],

Llanelly Corporation Water Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

BILLS REPORTED.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

Dover Harbour Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Londonderry Bridge Commissioners Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Liverpool Copper Wharf Company, Limited (Delivery Warrants), Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they
had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Major Barnston, Mr. Charles Barrie, Mr. James Bell, Colonel Campion, Mr. France, Major Oscar Guest, Mr. Lynn, Mr. Montagu, Mr. Hugh Morrison, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray, Mr. Rose, Captain Sir Beville Stanier, Mr. Townley, and Sir Joseph Walton; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Broad, Major Breese, Mr. Donald, Mr. Finney, Mr. Robinson Graham, Major John Edwards, Major Kelley, Commander King, Sir Hallewell Rogers, Mr. Sturrock, Colonel Lambert Ward, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Mathew Wilson, and Sir John Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Hartshorn and Mr. Hinds; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Tillett and Lieut.-Commander Hilton Young.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP F).

Sir EDWARD NICHOLL reported from the Committee on Group F of Private Bills; That, as no business was ready for the consideration of the Committee, the Committee had adjourned till a day to be fixed later.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY [17TH ALLOTTED DAY].

Considered in Committee.

[Sir F. BANBURY in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1920–21. [Progress.]

(CLASS 7.)

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

4.0 P.M

"That a sum, not exceeding £17,572,797, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1919, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War."—[Note.—£10,000,000 has been voted on account.]

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): As the Committee is aware, this is the first time that the Estimates of the Ministry of Health have been presented to it. It will also be in the recollection of Members that the Ministry of Health during the first year of its life collected to itself a number of other Departments, so that it could proceed to consolidate in one Department all those interests concerned with the preservation and promotion of the public health, and also, so far as we could, delete from the work and the consideration of this Department matters which are foreign to that purpose. It will, I am sure, be with the concurrence of Members of the Committee if at the outset I mention the serious loss which the Ministry has suffered in the first year of its work through the death of Sir Robert Morant, who was at all times a loyal and trusted friend, a great servant of the public, and, besides this, was an example to us all of self-denying, far-sighted, resolute patriotism. During the course of the year various services have been amalgamated, including those relating to the Health Insurance Department, the Registrar-General, the work of the Board of Education in regard to school medical services and prospective
mothers, the work of the Home Office under the Children Act, and a very important branch of the public service which lately came under its purview, the Board of Control, which deals with the whole question of lunacy, and other minor services. At the same time, I am glad to say we have been able to pass over, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to other Departments a number of services which are foreign to our interests, particularly matters in connection with railways, roads, bridges, and locomotives, to the Ministry of Transport, and various matters to the Board of Education, such as libraries and museums, and there have been numerous other transfers.
Notwithstanding the amalgamations which have taken place, I think we may congratulate ourselves that, so far as any permanent increase in the staffs is concerned—I mention this matter first—we have not incurred the charge, which is in these days so often preferred against us, to any considerable degree. There are four sections of our work which have required the employment of a large number of people on a temporary basis, but these all arise out of the War. The first is the postponed valuation of the approved societies which has required a temporary staff of over 500 persons, and I am glad to say that this valuation will be completed by the end of the year or thereabout, and also, when the time comes, it will reveal the soundness of the financial operations of this scheme. I am glad to say that I know that in many societies there will be a surplus to be disposed of in additional benefits. Then there is the staff connected with the Housing Department, numbering in all about 750, of which 650 are on a temporary basis. Here may I remind the Committee, by an illustration which will be fresh in its memory, how difficult it is to avoid increases of staff which we are tempted to employ and at the same time to be able to meet fully the criticisms directed against us because we employ them. The other day I was asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) if I could give him particulars of the valuation of different parcels of ground which have been purchased for housing, and to my regret I was not able to do so, not through lack of goodwill on my part, but because of the fact that these parcels of ground have
been purchased from portions of other farms and estates and were not a separate value entity. There are over 7,000 of these sites embracing 51,000 acres of land, and I was advised that it would have meant the employment of thirty additional persons for several weeks, and it was solely on that ground that I was unable to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the information. That is a useful illustration of the temptations to which we are exposed of employing additional staffs when on some further occasion we have to answer the charge of having employed them.
The remarks which I have made on the work of the Ministry is an index of what is required to be done in any intelligent health system throughout the country, and therefore a great part of the work of the Department, apart from administrative duties, has been absorbed in consideration of various aspects of the proposals which we shall have in due time to submit to Parliament with regard to health services outside the Ministry. I will mention two matters with regard to our present local Government system, one of which is to me a source of profound dissatisfaction and the other the reverse. At 8.15 to-night we shall have to interrupt our proceedings and consider a dispute between Leith and Edinburgh as to which shall absorb the other. The present position, both as regards the great expense which is often involved and the lack of policy which has hitherto guided us, in regard to the determination of local government areas is exceedingly unsatisfactory, and the evidence we shall have later to-night will illustrate that truth. I have taken a step to simplify and cheapen the procedure on the inquiry stage, and we have also, by arranging, as an experiment, a Joint Committee of these Houses in regard to the Parliamentary stage, endeavoured to secure some cheapness and expedition there, but the matter is at present in a very unsatisfactory condition. Of one matter of routine administration, I am glad to say that, for the first time in the records of local government, we are up-to-date. The audit is up-to-date for the first time.
This Ministry is, or ought to be, or ought to grow into a Ministry of Health, and that word has a very wide signification. It enters into every home and every life from the first day to the last, and it is
clear that a sound health policy will require time and patience for its development, and that any rash expenditure may be misleading and wasteful. The first essential in any well-defined health policy is the spread of good, common information, for, after all, the foundations of many of our disabilities is in the home and in the house. Then, any sound system must be based upon the principle of prevention. So far as possible, all our schemes must be designed with that dominant intention, and it is in that respect that we have not hitherto made as much progress as we might have done, and it is with that idea running through my mind that I am going to put before the Committee a record of some of the branches of the work of the Ministry.
Any proper development of a preventive health service must depend upon an adequate supply of trained persons, and there is at present in many branches a serious deficiency. It will take time to remove that want. You cannot produce trained staffs—nurses, midwives, and so forth—in the course of a year. I am quite sure that we should often be spending our time and money in vain, unless we rest on a well-thought-out scheme administered by people who know what they are wanting to do. Then, any systematic preventive scheme of service must offer fairly full facilities for dealing with early disability, and, above all, it must have at its service at all time an active prosecution of scientific research. The preventive services we have developed in this country have up to the present, so far as they relate to the surroundings of individuals, reached a stage of development beyond that of any other. Our sanitary services, so called, are well developed, and it is, I think, largely owing to them that the health of our people, who in many cases dwell in most pestilential places, is as good as it is; and it is from this point of view, dealing with the surroundings of the people, that the housing work, which is only one branch of the many activities of the Ministry—although it bulks largely in the public eye—must be regarded. In that connection I would say this, in case in the future I or any other Minister may be charged with neglecting to point it out, that in so far as the Ministry of Health is really successful and as, in course of time, its services become more complete
and yield a better result, the less obvious and the less striking they will be. Nobody, when he goes about his daily life, feels particularly grateful to the men who have swept out malaria. It does not occur to them. It is not objective, and that is an essential feature of all successful preventive services, and therefore as time goes on and the development of schemes become more successful they will become less objective and will bulk less in the public mind, and the less they bulk the more successful they will be.
One item in the objective activities of this Ministry is housing. This has been the subject of discussion a good many times in this House, and I do not propose to give many minutes to it, because I want to speak more strictly of health questions which have not received the attention they sometimes deserve. With regard, however, to the housing, the period of our early difficulties has been passed, I am glad to say, and I will only deal with the situation as it is. The possibilities are great. May I say with regard to the refrain which inspired us and brought back many pleasant recollections as we heard it in the Division Lobby last night that with regard to the acquisition of land, at all events, the Ministry of Health, who have sanctioned the acquisition of 51,000 acres of land by local authorities for housing, have the satisfaction that they can rest on achievement rather than song? Therefore I felt quite disposed to join in the chorus in the other Lobby, knowing that we had actually done it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Do it now!"] With regard to the official plans of houses, we are now past the final plans in over 200,000 houses, but the tenders have been approved and finally settled with regard to 126,000 houses, and there is nothing in respect to them to prevent the work going on except the two conditions of finance and labour. With regard to these 126,00 houses passed for tender, I find the contract has been signed and in many cases work has been started on the site in respect of 69,887—that is to say, there is a difference between those two figures of over 50,000 where the tender has been approved and all details settled, but where the contract has not been signed. In addition to this, there are an additional 12,000 on which the commencement of work has been authorised under the
subsidy scheme. Here you will find that the details of actual constructive work lags behind the figure just given just as that figure lags behind the figure for con tracts approved. Of course, many of the contracts cover two years' work. A man will begin his work in sections of ten or eight, and at any one moment there will only be a certain number under construction. The total number of which we have details at various stages of construction, finished or otherwise, is 37,511.

HON. MEMBERS: How many are finished?

Dr. ADDISON: Over 2,000 are inhabited and another 5,000 or 6,000 will be completed in the next month or two. I want to direct the attention of the Committee to two points about these figures. There is considerable disparity between the period when the tenders are approved and the contracts are signed for work to begin. The cause of that delay in the main has been the lack of financial provision, and in this respect I would like to say a word as to the bond campaign which I am glad to say is being successful beyond what we could have hoped. Since 1st April, by means of stock issues, housing bonds and mortgages, the various authorities have raised no less than £30,000,000 in respect of housing, and it has been raised and is now being raised at a rather greater rate than £10,000,000 a month, which, I think, is a very creditable performance, and it means that the delay between the approval of the tender and the signing of the contract is becoming shorter. May I give two illustrations which I think are significant as to the success of the bond campaign? In the city of Bradford, where they have raised over £700,000, there are very few subscriptions of more than £300 each. That means that the contributors have been people of small means. It is a welcome and encouraging sign, but if all reports are correct as to the wealth which has been made in that city during the War, we might well have looked for larger contributions from those who have made great moneys, although in many cases employers of labour have given most generous contributions towards this scheme, and in some places the great trade union organisations, the railwaymen and so on, have contributed very large sums. I have at the bottom of the list a small village where the initial contribution was
£15,000, representing more than £3 to every man, woman and child in the village. That is a very encouraging sign of the real interest in the subject.

HON. MEMBERS: Name!

Dr. ADDISON: The name of the village is Trimdon, Durham. The other point to which I would direct attention is the disparity between the schemes for 80,000 houses on which work has been authorised and the 37,000 in which there has been material progress. The main cause of the delay there is the deficiency of labour. Of course, the methods of construction also are important, but with regard to the labour supply there were on 30th June 15,000 skilled workpeople employed on building houses, and a deficiency of labour in respect of these houses at that date of 12,206. That shows that it is quite useless for people to say that there are sufficient men to go round. There are not, and, therefore, the case which I have so often made with the trade unions concerned is being abundantly justified by the result. It is perfectly clear, if this work is to go on at a proper speed, a great many more workmen must be brought in. I would also like to say a word with regard to output. There has been an encouraging improvement, but in many places it is still very much less than I think it should be, and certainly than it was before the War, and it is much less in some places than in others. For all that, the average output has substantially improved during the last two months. But I am persuaded that we are confronted here with the necessity for a scheme which, whilst giving proper guarantees of security for work to the men employed, will secure agreement with the trade unionists for an additional amount of labour being brought in, and thereby insure the utmost possible output. Proposals are being formulated to that end. As an illustration, I may say that a man who is laying bricks at the rate of 400 a day will build four houses a year. If he is laying at the rate of a thousand a day he will build 8½ a year.

Major WATTS MORGAN: Are they to get increased wages?

Dr. ADDISON: They ought to, and I should be glad if a system could be devised, and the trade unions would agree to it, whereby that could be done. It is
cheap to pay if we get the output. May I say that the steadily increasing cost ought to be stated very frankly to the House, because although with regard to the 126,000 tenders finally approved the last word has been said, we are faced with this, that whereas in the month of January the average cost of house with a parlour and kitchen and three bedrooms was about £800, each month since then the average quotation has progressively increased, and the average price of tenders for the same house during the month of June was £906. That is to say, there has been an increase in the tender quotation for the same class of house during the last six months of £100 in respect of each house.
it is perfectly evident that an increase like that, with all its disastrous consequences, cannot go on, and the only way it can be compensated is by getting a check to the rise in the cost of materials, by getting an understanding whereby we can get a greater output from labour and a proper national. understanding with regard to wages. We have commonly, and often quite justly, blamed the trade unionists for not helping as I think they might have helped in this matter. I think labour has lost the greatest opportunity of its political life up to the present, because there is nothing more unselfish in the world than this campaign. However, I would like to say this, that some of our chief difficulties have arisen in many districts by the unconscionable competition amongst employers for labour, and all manner of inducements have been offered to attract labour from one man to another, with the result that labour inevitably asks this question: If a man in the next village or the next parish is getting twopence or threepence an hour more than I am, why should not I get it? And we consequently get demands for increases in wages.
The other hope with regard to this increase of cost is to encourage alternative methods of production, and I am glad to say that with regard to some of them we are meeting with conspicuous success. Over fifty of these new methods have been tried, but one of the best we have met with—with which most people are familiar—is that employed outside Leeds. Two unskilled workmen began two houses at 10.30 a.m., and they were up to the first floor joists by 2.30 in the afternoon. This is the slab method
of construction which I am proposing to encourage as much as possible. I understand there has been discontent and questions raised amongst the skilled labourers in the district as to whether they are to allow this to go on, but I am glad to say that none of the responsible officials of the unions have countenanced this. I am perfectly certain this is our main hope, and it is clear that there is nothing more in the interests of labour than that we should get the houses built as cheaply as we can in order to check the increase of rents. For my own part, I shall never be any party to trying to keep rents down and thereby subsidising wages by letting houses at rents which have no relation whatever to the cost of the houses. Unpopular as it may be, we are pursuing that course, and we propose to go on with it.
I will turn now to the first duty of the Ministry with regard to the prevention of disease. At the time of demobilisation of great numbers of troops, vast tracts of Europe were devastated by disease, and our first anxiety was to secure the country against invasion. Therefore, one of our first duties was to organise a sanitary cordon round this country, and I am glad to say that up to the present we have been remarkably successful. Portions of Poland were ravaged with typhus, and many other parts of Europe by other diseases, but up to the present there has been no spread of any of these diseases in this country. We have arranged with the Treasury, in order to help the port sanitary authorities, to pay 50 per cent. grants towards their expenses for improving their facilities. I will only give one illustration of many which I have had brought before me of the way in which these invasions have been prevented. It is a very interesting case, and one of many where plague might have been introduced into this country. This particular ship called at Plymouth, and certain cases on board were reported as influenza. Fifty people came on shore and were distributed all over the country. When the ship came round to London the medical officer of the port, I am glad to say, was suspicious that these cases were plague It started, as plague generally does start on a ship, amongst the men who had to do with the food, for the disease is often carried by infected rats. Special arrangements were made to get the cargo off
without the workmen being infected, and the cargo was disinfected and isolated. We supplied inoculation for the whole of the crew, and I am glad to say they had no conscientious objections. The result of these efforts was that the whole thing was trapped. The whole of the 50 people who had got into the country were traced, and no spread of the disease occurred. That is only one instance of a great many that I could give.
We had another danger before us last year, and that was the fear that rested on the minds of our people that we should have another influenza epidemic of the kind which had had such devastating results the year before. In the first quarter of 1919 no fewer than 37,000 people mostly adults in the prime of life; died of the disease, and that was a visitation not comparable with any that we had had for some hundreds of years. We did everything we could, by arrangements with the Foreign Office, to be supplied with information from abroad. We organised a number of experts in other Departments, and we prepared documents giving such information as we could to encourage the people to protect themselves against the disease. We also provided a great number of doses of a protective vaccine which, I am glad to say, large numbers of people used freely, and, although no doubt I gave great offence to those who are not in sympathy with such methods, I think we were justified in spending money in that way. Thanks to the weather and our good fortune we escaped the epidemic last year. Similarly we took steps, under Sir David Semple, to deal with cases that arose in connection with a rabies epidemic.
On the preventive side of our work, there is another disease to which I must refer—tuberculosis. In no disease is it easier to spend money unwisely than in combating tubercle. We have encouraged the development of accommodation in our sanatoria and have added more than 2,000 beds in the last year. We have done something even more necessary. In connection with the sanatoria we are providing additional places for the training of 1,000 men at a time. There is no doubt a large number of people who go into our sanatoria are maintained there at great expense for a long time, go back to home surroundings where they become re-infected, and who then try to enter the competitive labour market and
break down. The result is disappointment to them, loss of public money, and sorrow to all concerned.
Unless this system can be one which begins at the home and ends in recreating, as far as possible, a useful unit in the community under healthy conditions, it must in many respects be largely wasteful. We have now a dispensary system developed to a certain extent, but no dispensary system will be successful in pre-venting tubercle, and no sanatoria will wipe out the disease whilst people have to live crowded in unhealthy dwellings. Do not blame the sanatoria for something with which the sanatoria cannot deal. Inappropriate or unsufficient food and bad conditions of life and work are all a part of the tuberculosis problem. We have to bring the conditions in the homes within the scheme; otherwise it is quite useless to expect the eradication of the disease. At the end of their treatment large numbers of patients get tired of the routine of the sanatoria. When they get well enough there is nothing for them to do. They just hang about, and some- times they become troublesome to them-selves and to other people. They cannot go back to the work they had before they entered the sanatorium, for they cannot do a long day's work. It is essential, there-fore, that in our system we should have facilities, while the patient is undergoing treatment in the sanatorium, to encourage him to train and to develop self-help habits in some direction. We have pro vided training centres in connection with the sanatoria. We found at one or two places, however, that although you may have taught a man in a sanatorium to be, say, a joiner, it is quite useless to expect him to enter that occupation as a competitive joiner in the ordinary way. There has grown up in some places the village colony conception of what is necessary, and we have one or two standing illustrations, notably in Cambridgeshire, of the very successful application of that principle. I was there myself some time ago and saw a number of men. They all work at trade union rates of pay and very largely support themselves. They have started a co- operative system of selling and buying for the colony, which is on a self-supporting basis. The men live in cottages under healthy conditions. Many of them have been there for some years, and they show no tendency to relapse, but are becoming
useful members of the community. We have had a survey made of places suitable for the village colony scheme, and I have some of the valuable reports before me. In no matter is it more important than in connection with tubercle that you should proceed hand-in-hand with research. Otherwise we may waste great sums of money. Above all things it is necessary, beginning at the home, that all this service should be under the supervision of one directing authority, if we are to have a properly co-ordinated preventive system.
There is another set of diseases, of an exceedingly lamentable character, with which we are dealing energetically. I refer to venereal disease. Here let me say that there is no branch of service in which it is more necessary than in this to have a trained personnel. It is not enough simply to have centres for the treatment of venereal disease. It was in order that we might keep abreast of progress in this matter that I asked Colonel Harrison, who did brilliant work during the War, to join my staff with others and to help in organising this service. There has been a substantial increase in the number of persons attending these centres. The total attendances has gone up from 460,000 to 843,000. It means that people are beginning to realise the necessity of going to the centres early. The scheme is so far only at the beginning.

Mr. MYERS: Is it 843,000 persons or 843,000 visits?

5.0 P.M.

Dr. ADDISON: 843,000 attendances. There is a tendency amongst certain protagonists to fall upon one another in regard to the method of dealing with this disease. I would exhort them to fall upon the disease. There are some branches of social work where our best efforts are often thwarted by the quarrelling of different people who have the same objects in view. I hope that those willing to help in this campaign will not commit that cardinal error. In giving instructions to the centres as to what they are to do, you have to secure that you do not recommend something that cannot be applied; otherwise you get only disappointment as a result, and you stultify the whole enterprise. It is most essential that you should not imagine that what you can do with 1,000 men under strict military control you can do with the whole
population under no control at all. The conditions are entirely different. We have to proceed carefully. In this matter it is obvious that you are touching some of the most private, personal, and intimate concerns of the people in anything you say or in any instructions you give, and that you are likely to arouse susceptibilities. I am glad to say that the centres have increased in number and, more encouraging still, the people who attend them have increased and are beginning more and more to appreciate them.
The War has shown that properly directed efforts can cut short a great number of cases that otherwise would develop into mental deficiency of a permanent kind, and we are working out plans to provide that in any future arrangements the authorities shall be able to deal with mental cases while they are at an early stage to avoid their being labelled lunatics. The War has shown conclusively that that can be done with conspicuous success, and it is our business, now that we are dealing with matters affecting lunacy, to try to secure the development of a system designed for the early treatment of mental disorders. If that could be established, many of our asylums would be unnecessary. To develop the work towards this end post graduate courses for medical men have been arranged under various authorities, and courses of training of nurses and others for this class of disease are being pushed forward.
But in no matter is it more important to have trained personnel than in questions affecting the charge of mothers, and hence the importance of maternity and infant welfare homes. Early in the year it was clear to me that the thing necessary for success was to have trained personnel at our command in the way of nurses, midwives, etc. Therefore it was arranged last year with the Board of Education to have additional grants for training for health visitors, midwives, etc. That has been taken up very extensively. At present there are 700 midwives under training under the scheme, and the number of centres where this supervisory work is carried on has increased from 1,400 to 1,600.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is that training Vote for midwives in addition to the training Vote for the Board of Education?

Dr. ADDISON: It is the Board of Education Vote. The proportion of the population in the country which is now reached by these services increased during the past year from 55 to 61 per cent. which is a substantial increase of the rural population. But we ought to cover the whole of the rural population by this training scheme development and we shall, but this is only one illustration of the time that must elapse before any one of these services can be established which must rest on a trained personnel. I will not weary the Committee with details except in one respect. I think that the figure that I am going to give is the most encouraging figure that the Minister of Health could give, because the whole of this scheme, of which I have cut out a lot of detail, of health in the homes under the care of the health visitors, midwives, special nurses, etc., which is an elaborate organisation that is adopted now, I am glad to say, by all the big authorities in the country, is designed to secure a better opportunity for the mother and the child, and especially in infancy, because that is where a preventive service must really begin if it is to be successful.
I want to give a few of what I consider very startling figures in this matter. The infant death rate is generally quoted as so many per thousand. Towards the end of the last century and the beginning of this it remained stationary at about 150. It was 154 in 1900 and 154 in 1901. It did not begin to fall until 1906, when it was 132 In the year 1918 it dropped to 97, and last year it dropped to 89, and that was in spite of the fact in the last quarter of last year we had the influenza. But the figure that I am now going to quote for the last completed year, the last three-quarters of last year and the first quarter of this year, is only 78, or only about half what it was 20 years ago. No doubt this is the result of the spreading of good commonsense information and knowledge as to how to deal with infants. The development of these services throughout the country in nursing, midwifery and other facilities, and the combination of the whole big effort, has been able to reduce the infant mortality in 20 years from 151 to 78. That
is a striking performance. Even during the last 10 years the fall has been continued. If you had had that figure of 75 during the last 10 years it would have meant the saving of 250,000 lives in that period.
But this is only an index figure. It refers to the children who survive as the result of our efforts. It is to the good that you do not lose so many, but the point is that those who survive are better nourished and more likely to be useful members of the community hereafter. 1 have therefore taken out in full the child death rate for the five-year periods up to 1915—I have not got them for the last five years—and the fall has been from 57 to 37, and it is still falling in the same way. Then I look to see what was the result of the medical examination of school children notwithstanding this improvement, which of course has not made itself felt sufficiently as yet, in the children who go to school. But I have found that, although we are developing medical service as energetically as we can, of the first 750,000 children examined in our schools last year, 40 per cent. were still found to be physically defective. That will drop as the diminished infant mortality rate makes itself felt. But it is an appalling figure that nearly 50 per cent. of the children aged five were physically defective. We saw the expression of it in adult life in the War. It is all one continuous process, and this is where we have to begin.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by physically defective?

Dr. ADDISON: There are various defects, bad eye-sight, adenoids, bad teeth, mal-nutrition, and all kinds of defects.

Mr. McNEILL: Is there anybody who is effective?

Dr. ADDISON: I am glad to say that the facilities for treatment have improved, and that 69 per cent. of these have received treatment.
We have passed through the House measures affecting nurses registration, and we have now before us various other matters which have given the Department a lot of work, but are all part of the scheme to promote a system of preventive service which it is essential to get—well-paid nurses, for
example—before we can expect to meet the needs of the masses of the people in this matter. That is why the Nurses Registration Bill and a Dentists Bill are essential ingredients in any health scheme. When you come to the medical service you are at the last stage of your health service, that which is objective, that which is in the end of the lesser importance. The House has had before it, in the National Health Insurance Act, proposals to which I will not further refer involving a great deal of work. We are now establishing the referee service, which in its essence is a preventive service, to try to prevent undue demands upon sick funds, undue duration of sickness.
As to the main purpose of that new service the House has had before it the Report of the Medical Consultative Council under Lord Dawson, setting out the proposals which the Council felt were necessary ingredients in any properly constructed health service. It is quite true that for those who are not within reach of a good hospital, or are not very well supplied with this world's goods, the services for early scientific complete treatment are largely not available, and anything like a properly designed system must seek to secure that these are made more available. It has been part of our duty to survey the public expenditure at present under various heads, under the Poor Law in respect of health, and all manner of other services, and we are spending millions and millions every year on all manner of health services which are co-ordinated in no common direction, and I am quite certain that the right line to pursue is to consolidate them and give them a common direction and a common purpose rather than simply blindly to increase them. Therefore a properly considered policy in this matter is the first essential for real progress.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury): Anything that requires legislation must not be discussed in Committee.

Dr. ADDISON: There are four consultative councils under the Ministry, and a great part of the work mentioned has been devoted to these matters during the past twelve months. It was in connection with that that I was speaking, and that was purely arising out of the Report which the Department has issued.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman confines himself to that.

Dr. ADDISON: I do so. I will not elaborate it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We are not on the Report now.

Dr. ADDISON: I am not proposing to elaborate what was set out in the Council's Report which I have supplied to Parliament, and which, I hope, at all events, some Members have read.
One of the subjects which must be a source of great anxiety is the position of our voluntary hospitals. We have, under the Poor Law, hospitals numbering more than half the hospitals of the country, and I have arranged to have these surveyed from a medical point of view, because it is necessary, of course, that not only should we be fully aware on the financial side as to what we are doing, but we require a medical, scientific survey of the hospital services which are available now, and might be made more available. Therefore, a survey has been ordered. Then, the position of the voluntary hospitals has been brought to my attention on many occasions. I have been able to meet those responsible for their direction, and for the present the King Edward's Fund, after consultation with the Ministry, has set aside £250,000 to meet the necessities of the hospitals, and grants are now being made out of that Fund. Other proposals are being worked out, but I would like to say that those who, representing the voluntary hospitals, came to the Ministry of Health and discussed the matters with us, had, I think, at first in mind, that the Ministry of Health was greedy to take hold of these institutions for some purpose or other of its own. We have enough responsibility in the administration of our services to save us from any temptation of that sort. Many of these institutions are pioneers of efficient service, and it would be a mistake of the first order to seek to interfere with that efficiency, and I am quite sure that any scheme the Ministry has put forward, and such as it has discussed with them, will be designed to promote their public utility.
In one other matter the Ministry has taken services under it, and consolidated them in other services of a similar kind,
by taking the Department of the Registrar-General, making it a part of the Ministry of Health, and securing that the work there is directed in common with our own work in preparing vital statistics, and the census work, upon which they are now engaged as a preliminary, is thereby linked up with the main health considerations which the Ministry ought to have in view.
In one other matter the Ministry has taken a step which, I think, the Committee will recognise is essential, and that is in doing what it can to secure further provision for scientific and medical research, and the Treasury has made a grant for the service of £125,000, as compared with a figure of less than £60,000 a few years before. Although there is a great call for economy, I venture to say in no direction is expenditure more justifiable than this, and the paltry amount of £70,000, or thereabouts, by which we have increased the expenditure on medical research is a trifle compared with the results which have already been achieved, and a trifle compared with expenditure in other directions which are far from being so fruitful. In justification of the increased expenditure on scientific and medical research, I will give one or two illustrations of its proved value, because I think, the British character being what it is, and I am quite sure the traditions of this House being what they are, when it is shown that an increased amount of money has been devoted to scientific research, it is a material point to show that, at all events, we have got a good return for the money we have spent, and that the increased expenditure is thereby justified. I have before me a long list, but I will only take two or three instances of the useful work which is being done by the grants given under this head. I remember a grant was made with regard to the prevention of T.N.T. poison, for which we were paying several thousand pounds a week compensation. We only gave a few hundreds out of this Research Fund for this purpose, but it practically abolished T.N.T. poison, and what it saved us was certainly more than the total expenditure under the whole grant in any one year. That is one illustration of its value turned into a cash equivalent.
I will give another illustration. We remember that, when we have heard stories of mummies being brought over
to this country and examined, we have been told by those who examined them that the germs of various complaints were still there, and potential in their malignity if they got the chance. One of the age-long plagues of Egypt would have given us immense expenditure just now, had it not been for the work of research, which was assisted out of the Research Fund. Owing to that work, what has been a plague of Egypt for all time was practically prevented from invading our forces there. In view of the large forces which we had in these parts, what it would have meant if we had not prevented the spread of that plague may be illustrated by the fact that we are still paying £6,000 a year to men affected in the South African War. I will give two other illustrations. I find that, in connection with one of the grants, work was done in the Eastern Command in connection with heart cases, the result being that in that Command alone, owing directly to the recommendations arising from the small grant, there was a saving of 4s. per bed per day, which represented £57,000 saving in the Eastern Command in one year. That, I think, is a good justification for this class of public expenditure, and for increasing it, as I have done, owing to the increased cost of These services.

Mr. IRVING: Do you mean more than the £125,000?

Dr. ADDISON: We should be justified in making it more, but what I am doing now is justifying my Estimate. There is another illustration which, I think, further justifies this increased expenditure, and that is our record in the War in one matter. Various grants under different headings were made at different times out of this Research Fund in connection with anti-typhoid work, and I would like to give the Committee some figures. I am not saying it is due solely to these researches, but it is mainly due to them, without a question. In the South African War the total strength of the British Army was-about 530,000 all told, all through the War. The average ration strength was 208,000. In the South African War there were 57,684 cases of typhoid, and 8,022 died. In the recent War the total strength of the British forces throughout the whole of the War would be under-estimated if I put them at 5,000,000, and the ration strength would be under-estimated at
1,200,000. If we had had the same death-rate from typhoid among the men, who were living under the worst possible conditions in the recent War, as the death-rate in the South African War, we should have had 400,000 cases and 56,000 deaths. Between the South African War and the recent War these researches have gone on, some of them aided, I am glad and proud to say, with grants out of this Fund. The result has been that, although we had 5,000,000 men passing through the miserable conditions which obtained, there were only throughout the whole War in the British forces 7,423 cases and 266 deaths. You could not have a greater justification for expenditure on intelligently-directed re-search than that fact alone. I have given a selection. I could give three times as many instances to prove the mere money value of this expenditure on research, and there is no recommendation which our Ministry has made which I can commend with more confidence to this Committee than that.
In all matters in which the Ministry of Health is concerned, as it must ever be concerned, if it is to be intelligently directed, there must be the spread of knowledge. The knowledge we want to have spread is the kind of knowledge that should come to every home. Therefore, good sense and tact in the Ministry of Health is probably more necessary than in any other Department of the State. For the Department is concerned in matters which affect the homes and the interests of our people in all their ways. Therefore, it behoves us, above all others, to endeavour to secure well-ascertained knowledge and energetically to seek to spread it, and to apply it. It is on these principles only that a scientific and a well-directed health service can gradually be built up. It is on these lines that I commend these Estimates.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The Committee has listened to a very interesting statement from the Minister of Health in regard to that portion of his Department with which his record of personal and public service has been more closely connected, and which, if I may say so, lies nearest to his heart. The instances he has given to us in support of his claim that the scientific research has been dully justified, not only in the War, but since the Armistice, were, I think, amply convinc-
ing to members of the Committee. No one can over-estimate the value of a Ministry of Health in full and efficient working order in this country. At all times necessary, it was never so vital as at the present moment, when, owing to the losses of the War, direct and indirect, every citizen, and especially every younger citizen, is an asset which should be preserved with no niggardly ideas of expenditure, but with a forward looking to the use, certainly of the young, and the development of the assets of this nation in the very serious times which lie before us. The variety of subjects the right hon. Gentleman has touched upon will, I think, convince any fair-minded listener, or reader, that under his guidance this portion, at any rate, of the Ministry of Health, is in wise and very earnest hands. Anything the House of Commons can do to support the Minister or his Department in the way of the ever-increasing needful development of that Department on the lines of public health will never, I am sure, be wanting.
There are many hon. Members in the House much better qualified than I am to develop that portion of the statement of the Minister. I pass, therefore, to a much more difficult, and what I regard as a more controversial matter—that is the question of housing. It is a matter of real regret to me that to-day this question of housing is where it is.
I hope in what I have to say I shall not be actuated consciously certainly, and, I hope, not sub-consciously with any desire to make a score. The subject is far too serious for that. But in so far as I feel it my duty to point out the shortcomings, as I think, of the Government in this matter, and to draw attention once again to the most serious consequences of the shortage of houses, I should not be discharging my public duty if I do not do so. I myself do not share the cheerful view of the position taken by the Minister. I hope I am wrong. I hope he is right. But he did not seem to regard the situation as one of that very deep seriousness that a very large number of Members do. What is the position? What was the admitted need, stated over and over again? It was that there should be no less than 800,000 houses built to meet the necessities of the case. These were not marginal
luxuries, but the hard necessities of housing in the country, in relation to reasonable, habitable houses. By way of illustration it was put to me by someone quite qualified to do so this way, and what it really means is this: Draw a line, or take a road running from Southampton to Edinburgh. Line it on both sides with houses, each with a 28 feet approximately frontage—which I think is the demand of the Department, and which represents the kind of house which is needed—visualise that—which is the need—and I think we are entitled really to ask the Minister what are the present results?
We remember that in November and December, 1918, and certainly in the early months of 1919, that in this House, on its first assembling, we were told that it was hoped to raise at no distant date thousands of houses. The Minister has told us very frankly what is the position to-day. Eighteen months or more since this House first met, and very nearly two years since the Government was put into power, there are 2,000 finished houses. The right hon. Gentleman hopes that in the course of a couple of months 5,000 or 6,000 houses more will be ready for occupation. He has told us that a couple of hundred thousand plans have been passed; that 126,000 tenders have been accepted, and that contracts have been signed and work started, in round figures, on 70,000 houses. We have heard these figures before—of 100,000 plans, tens of thousands of tenders, and of contracts signed! We go back again. What has been done? Two thousand houses put up. That is the lamentable position in which the country finds itself. I am not for one moment suggesting that this is entirely due to the Government. There are other causes over which they had no control at all. I am stating the fact, however, and there it is.
The country is entitled to say that this vital need has not been seriously met. I think I may, without bringing myself into the matter unduly, make a reference to a suggestion which was made in this House somewhere about this time last year. One of the charges we are entitled to make against the Government is this: that they have never really grasped the fact that you cannot deal with this problem solely through official channels. That was the trouble with which the thing began. I remember my right hon. Friend
the Paymaster-General sitting, I think, below the Gangway in those days. Everybody was hoping that in and through the Act now on the Statute, but which was then a Bill passing through the House, that the Departments which were going to be set working in and through the local authorities would, in some way or another, provide us with the housing we wanted. I may not be practical in some things. On the other hand, I wish I could indulge in more flights of imagination. Somehow or another, I always do not seem to get far on the wings of oratory. But I try to keep to the facts of the situation. Greatly daring, I said:
Go on with your official scheme by all means, but do not overload it, rather give every chance to private enterprise to go on with the job also.
I remember Viscount Astor, who was then, I think, Secretary to my right hon. Friend, from that Bench scoffing at me. He said, "What does the right hon. Gentleman want? Does he seriously suggest that there shall be a subsidy given to the private builders?"
That was not in my mind. I thought it an impracticable suggestion. I was cautious and I did not answer. The spokesman for the Government said, "An awful thing!" The official mind was shocked with the idea. It was impossible! But what did we find afterwards? First the subsidy of £100, then £150, then £250. I also find there are 12,000 houses already built!

Dr. ADDISON: No, no; they are on the way.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Are they above the grass?

Dr. ADDISON: I said they were in various stages, from having their foundations dug to completion. I said we have granted certificates in respect of these. What stages they are in I do not know.

Sir D. MACLEAN: They have only had two or three months.

Dr. ADDISON: No, six or seven.

Sir D. MACLEAN: And the others fully eighteen months. However, there is the position! If you want houses, clearly that obviously is one of the main factors by which you can get them. Notwithstanding the objections then raised, I very
gladly welcome the new departure that has been taken. But consider the way in which building materials have been held up! There was the official grip on the whole thing! Far too many practical men have submitted to me evidence on this matter, and to my mind it is overwhelming. At every turn one meets it. I have had instances put to me by practical men of what has happened as regards the building scheme at Woolwich. This was commenced, as I understand it, in August last. The scheme started there, as I am informed, was with an energetic and sympathetic council mainly composed of Labour. [An HON. MEMBER: "It would not be a Labour Council!"] They started well, and there was sympathy and understanding with the council. In May of this year only fifty houses had been built. I say that there has been too much officialism.

Dr. ADDISON: The great cause was that they had not any money, and could not sign the contract.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Wait until I have finished my little tale. I am told that this is what happened. They had the general lay-out which was the first step, and then there were the usual references to the regional commissioner. Then he had to refer the matter to the chief architect to the Ministry, who made certain alterations. After that the architects again began and prepared their sketch plan for the various types of houses, and this again had to be approved by the borough council. Again it was submitted to the regional commissioner, who suggested further alterations. Then came forward the working drawings for the first fifty houses, after which there was some more professional discussion. The regional commissioner took the architects' plans before the right hon. Gentleman's Departments, and drastic reductions were suggested. By that time the hopes and aspirations contained in the manual were found to be quite incompatible with the amount of money which the public could raise.
After that much time was spent in conferences with all the authorities, and at last tenders were accepted for 1,000 houses. These houses had to be built upon the prices settled by the contractor and director of building materials, and he could not supply the bricks and cement, and his excuse was that trans-
port was lacking, and after a long discussion, in which a good deal more time was spent, consent was obtained, and they went into the open market, got the necessary materials, and went ahead. I have had those figures given to me on what seemed very good authority, and I do not think in the record which I have given that there is anything unusual. That is the sort of thing which has been going on, and unless strong measures are taken it will go on and throttle the real driving power by which you can get houses swiftly built.
The charge I pressed against the Department is that you are driving through the narrow bottle-neck of the Ministry far too many details in connection with the development of the housing scheme, and until you get rid of a large amount of your officialism you will continue to clog the machine by which houses could be produced. I have had instance after instance brought to my personal notice, and wherever they are discussed the evidence seems to me to be overwhelming that you must give much greater freedom to the local authorities and trust them far more than you do. You should encourage by all the means you can private enterprise, and let the materials go free.

Dr. ADDISON: We are doing it.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Then it within the last three or four months.

Dr. ADDISON: Building materials never have been controlled, and my right hon. Friend has been quite misinformed.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I have received my information from those who have practical knowledge, and to say now that materials have been free for anybody to use, as regards building materials during the past eighteen months, seems to me to be flying in the face of what I hear from men who are in the middle of the business. I know we have to make allowance for the enormous financing difficulty, which is no doubt very serious, but I do not think I am far out when I say that to provide 900,000 houses which are needed now you want very little short of £1,000,000,000.
There is an added factor of real seriousness that the arrears are increasing. We heard a statement to-day with
regard to the proposed increase of railway fares. You have to consider in this matter the hundreds and thousands of people, employed in London, who pour in and out every day for distances of thirty or forty miles. You are going to double the cost of a third-class season ticket to Southend. A season ticket which cost £15 is going to cost £30, and this will cause hundreds and thousands of people, who now travel out of London, to enter into this awful competition for houses in London. The problem of the holidays, although serious, is trifling compared with these things. With the increase of population going on there is no emigration, as there used to be, to relieve congestion, because you cannot get ships to take the people, and all the while this housing problem is daily increasing in urgency and in arrears from all those evil causes to which I have referred. We can all sympathise with any Minister who is charged with this terrible responsibility, and I confess that I do not see a way out of it.
It is easy to criticise and say that during the past eighteen months this and that might have been done, and we are entitled to say it. The question is, What are you going to do now? Money is extraordinarily difficult to get. I happen to know, from my own personal experience in business, that this difficulty is increasing. I suggest that you should get rid of as much officialism as you can. I know it is very difficult to do it. Once you have got these things inside a public Department, the tendency is to hold on to everything. I think my right hon. Friend is as conscious of that as anybody, but you will never solve this problem by officialism. I hope my hon. Friends of the Labour party will not think that I am hitting at their views.

Major MORGAN: Do not be afraid; go on.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Officialism has broken down, and we must make a fresh start somewhere. I suggest that, while retaining all the necessary control over the plans and the houses, you should have less officialism. I know you cannot allow public money to be flung about in any way, and there must be some measure of public control; but since officialism has broken down, you should
give a much freer hand to private enterprise, and see if you cannot do better in that way. At any rate, private enterprise cannot be worse. The seriousness of the problem increases every day. I have the gravest apprehension of what may happen in the social order of the people of this country in the immediate future if they imagine that we are really prosperous and that everything is all right because wages are high at the present moment and employment is fairly easy to get. We should not overlook the fact that we are thousands of millions poorer than we were five or six years ago.
Production is not going up, and all sorts of factors are working us into a most serious and difficult state of affairs. If I changed places with the Minister of Health to-day, I might not be able to do much, but, at any rate, I should make a determined attack upon officialism, because it is throttling the country in all sorts of vital directions. These great industries, with all their faults, operated in days gone by to supply the national need to a substantial extent, and you cannot get all these things done by a Government Department. We require something to be done, and not drift along as we are doing in the present state of affairs.

6.0 P.M.

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I make no apology in following the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) for confining my observations to the subject of housing which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, bulks large in the public mind and is one intimately associated with public health. I hope I shall not add to the difficulties of the right hon. Gentle-man the Minister of Health. Even were I disposed to do so, after listening to the rather barren speech of the right hon. Member for Peebles, I feel convinced that if I were dissatisfied with my right hon. Friend's administration it would be exceedingly bad policy to kill Charles in order to make James king on this occasion. Frankly I have not the least idea of what was the right hon. Gentleman's one constructive proposal. He said more than once—and he laid considerable emphasis on it—that what he would do would be to give private enterprise a chance. I have not the faintest idea what he means by that. I was rather reminded of the man who said his object was to
compel people to volunteer. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be in the same position. Private enterprise has got its chance. While it has all the difficulties which confront private enterprise it has also a subsidy on every house it builds, and if that is not giving private enterprise a chance then I have not the faintest idea what the right hon. Gentleman wants. He says he wants private enterprise to be put in a position to build houses with the very smallest amount of interference from the Department which grants it a subsidy. That subsidy has been quickly obtained and effectively used in my own constituency. I am afraid my right hon. Friend has added rather to his own difficulties in dealing with this problem by not taking the House into his full confidence in regard to the question of the reinforcement of labour in the building industry, and that has had the effect of creating critics where he might have gained allies.
There are two main problems with which he is confronted and which I think we are bound to consider on this Vote and to criticise as constructively as we can. The first is this—is his internal administration as effective as it should be? The second is: Is he going the right way to solve as quickly as possible the wider problems which arise outside and beyond the internal administration of his Department? I will only say, one word on the question of administration. The secret of successful administration of this kind is to decentralise. The right hon. Gentleman has done so on paper, I admit, but I am not sure he has done it in the sense of really decentralising power, and giving it to the people in the locality. If you do not thus decentralise, if you do not delegate sufficient power to local representatives, you had better not decentralise at all.
I have one specific instance in proof of that. I am not complaining in the least of any treatment which I have had from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, because the moment I have got to the principal man in his office, I find I have been able to get a settlement within 10 minutes. The case I am referring to is one in which the purchase had been approved locally, and prices had been agreed upon. It was urgent that the whole transaction should be settled promptly, because a very advantageous agreement had been arrived at by the
purchasers, under which they could get the purchase money, and they knew that if the bargain were not completed at once, they would never get another such chance. As soon as I got to the principal people in the right hon. Gentleman's office, the matter was settled, and an order was sent down by telegram sanctioning the purchase, thereby enabling the local authority to complete the transaction, and to save a considerable amount of money, not only for themselves, but for the Department. What I want to urge is, that if adequate powers had been delegated to the local officers, there would never have been a delay, which might have endangered the transaction. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the administration of his Department and make quite sure that power is adequately decentralised.
The only other point about administration which I wish to raise is in connection with the question of finance. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will let the local authorities know quite clearly where they stand in the matter of finance. I am not going to say a word which will absolve the local authorities from using every effort to raise money locally for housing schemes. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has been able to give so satisfactory an account with regard, at any rate, to a certain number of localities. What the local authorities want to know is this—whether they be authorities with a rateable value of over £200,000, or whether their rateable value is under £200,000—once a tender has been accepted and a scheme has been approved, if they are unable to raise the necessary money to carry it through in their own locality and they send to the right hon. Gentleman, will the difference be found for them by borrowing from the Local Loans Commissioners? They want that to be made perfectly plain, and I think it can be made clear without, at the same time, causing them in any way to relax their efforts to raise money in their own localities. The two things which local authorities most need in order to stimulate them to further action are effective decentralisation and definite information on the financial situation.
The second point I have to raise—and I will do it very shortly—is a rather big question outside that of general administration. It has reference to the ever
increasing difficulty in connection with labour shortage and soaring prices. It is not too much to say that the need for houses in this country, and for their quick provision, is as great as was the need for munitions in the early days of the War, and the same drastic steps must be taken to provide these houses as were taken by the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessor to get munitions in the early days of the War. It is difficult enough in the present state of affairs, when the country is prosperous, to find that men are practically tied to employment in one locality, but has the right hon. Gentleman considered what the position is going to be when we get a slump of unemployment? That unemployment when it comes will come quickly and, possibly, section-ally. It will very likely strike particular trades or particular localities, and unless you have got this question well on the way to settlement by that time you will have destroyed the mobility of labour, and be perfectly incapable of meeting the particular cases of unemployment as and when they arise. I am still in doubt as to what the right hon. Gentleman is really doing. We get the "Weekly Bulletin," which shows us how many schemes and how many tenders have been approved. The right hon. Gentleman tells us, with an unconscious double entendre, the increasing number of houses in what he calls "the tender stage," but at the same time we do not know how the steadily growing demand for labour is being dealt with. Last February the right hon. Gentleman told us that even if he were to put every bricklayer in the country on to houses required this year there would still be a shortage of 15,000 men. That was four or five months ago. Last month he said he was trying to enter into arrangements with the Joint Industrial Council in the building trade. I asked him if he was satisfied that he had got the number of men necessary to meet his requirements for the houses even then in contemplation, and he replied that he was perfectly satisfied that he had not, and that there was a real shortage. He has repeated that statement to-day, but he has told us also that "a proposal is being formulated." That really is not enough. I know the difficulty in this matter. What we want to know is what it is that has been holding him up for the last six months in arriving at that arrangement.
If he will allow me to say so, this Committee is not going to be satisfied simply by having a proposal formulated and then submitted to the Joint Industrial Council for acceptance or rejection. The Joint Industrial Council in the building trade have got a very much wider responsibility in this matter than I think they are prepared at present to recognise. No one is more anxious than I am to see the Whitley Councils prosper. When the Whitley Committee made its report it laid it down that the spirit which should animate these Councils was not merely a spirit of settling their own domestic difficulties, but they had a much wider and more national outlook. There is a passage in the Whitley Report which is well known, and which, I think, is worth quoting. It runs:
It has been suggested that means must be devised to safeguard the interests of the community against possible action of an anti-social character on the part of the councils. We have, however, here assumed that the council in their work of promoting the interests of their own industries will have regard for the national interest. If they fulfil their functions they will be the best builders of national prosperity. The State never parts with its inherent overriding power, but such power may be least needed when least obtruded.. …. We venture to hope that representative men in each industry, with pride in their calling and care for its place as a contributor to the national well-being, will come together in the manner here suggested and apply themselves to promoting industrial harmony and efficiency, and removing the obstacles that have hitherto stood in the way.
The building trade itself, in a preamble in its own constitution, lays it down that its object is not merely the settlement of domestic difficulties, but that it has a bigger and more complete service to perform not only in the interests of the trade, but in the national interest. If that Council and that trade do not recognise their responsibility, it must be brought home to them. My complaint is that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken us with him step by step in his negotiations with the building trade. He may have difficulties if he negotiates by himself, but there is no trade or industry in the country, however powerful, which can stand against the united public opinion of this country. If he is in difficulties, if he is being held up on proposals which are right and necessary for getting this scheme of housing through, why does he not let us know those difficulties? He
will have the whole force of public opinion, not only in this House but in the country, at his back in any measures which it is necessary for him to take. Prompt reinforcement is the only possible way out. I shudder to think of the possibility, which has been suggested, of further restrictions on one class of building or another. It is always dangerous to impose such restrictions. You find one class of man engaged on one class of work, and it is not easy to take him off to another class of work. It causes dislocation and trouble, and the further you carry it the further you get away from the economic process. I want to see such a reinforcement in this industry that it will be able to play its part fully. The men are there, and the opportunity for the work is there. I should like to see no embargo upon any form of building at all in the near future. An embargo is only to be looked upon as a last resort, and can in no way be a substitute for the necessary reinforcement of labour in the building industry. If the right hon. Gentleman is seeking any particular thing upon which to lay an embargo, there is one which I think most hon. Members would agree is a proper one—the rather ponderous, and exotic War Memorial which is at present threatening us from the obscurity of the tea-room.
I do hope we shall get publicity, as we have been promised. The right hon. Gentleman is only making the whole thing more difficult for himself, as well as for us, if he fails to give us publicity. I do not, however, want one-sided publicity. We want to know step by step what are the particular difficulties, what are the reasons which are being advanced, for the opposition to the reinforcement of labour in the building trade; and we want publicity upon both sides. I have a strong feeling that there must be some thing behind this raising of prices. I cannot believe that prices have gone up at the rate they have owing to the sheer necessities of the situation. I cannot believe that there are not some restrictive arrangements in some of the industries producing building materials which are necessary for the due promotion of the trade. Charges on one side or the other are being bandied about, but the one party that knows nothing is the great third party—the mass of the people who want to get the houses built and to live in them as soon as they are built. If any of those charges are untrue, let us know
it, and we can pass on and concentrate upon the relevant issues. If, on one side or the other, action is being taken by any section which is holding up the obtaining of these houses, the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that no obstruction will be allowed to stand in the way of instructed public opinion, once public opinion knows what the real position is. If he is uncertain, as I dare say he is sometimes, as to what steps he ought to take, let him explain his difficulties frankly to this House and to the country. We do not want to know his difficulties in order to exploit them; the matter is far too serious for that. The country wants to help. With a few negligible exceptions, probably every hon. Member, to whatever party he may belong, has been down to his constituency and interviewed the local authorities and tried to help over the Housing Schemes and Housing Bonds. We have given the right hon. Gentleman proof that the House of Commons will stand behind him if he will give us the opportunity. Let him mobilise the forces in the House of Commons and in the country, and we will see him through.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: I make no apology for addressing the Committee on this subject, because I am one of the very few people who have practical knowledge of the difficulties of housing the working classes at the present time. When the Housing Bill was before the House I did everything I could to support it, thinking, in my modesty, that a Minister of the Crown who proposed a great scheme of what is termed social reform would know something about what he was dealing with, and that, although on the face of it, it appeared a most pernicious and foolish policy, that was probably due to one's inexperience, and not to the mistakes of the Minister in question. When the Act was passed, I myself started to build houses without any regard to the Housing Act. I wanted to get a check experiment, thinking that we should be able to estimate the value of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, and of his arrangements for housing the working classes, more truthfully if we had also another scheme working on the basis of pure private enterprise without State assistance. That experiment was certainly on a small scale, but still, to my mind, it has proved the fundamental fallacies upon which the
Government based its policy. The first is the fallacy that the building of houses is a function of the State. The State has certain functions, but I fail to find, in any of the works of the wise men of the past, any suggestion that the building of houses is a function of the State. The second fallacy is one for which, I suppose, the great Liberal party is responsible, namely, that it is possible, under any circumstances, and by any dodges and contrivances, to raise the standard of living or the standard of the people's housing by an Act of Parliament. The third fallacy, which brings us to more practical points, is that the people of this country cannot, or will not, pay an economic rent. I do not speak at all in relation to rural housing, of which I know nothing; but, speaking of urban housing, that fallacy, to my mind, is the biggest one of the lot. We have a condition of affairs now, and we have had ever since the Armistice was signed, in which a considerable portion of the people are anxious for better housing conditions, are at present very much overcrowded, and have the money to pay for those better conditions and are ready to pay it.
My experiment was this: In my constituency, on my own land, I started to build a class of houses very much superior to those recommended by the right hon. Gentleman—superior in design, with greater space, and of infinitely better material and workmanship. The houses I have been building would not be passed by the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry under one of his housing schemes. He would say that they were extravagant, that there were all sorts of unnecessary details, entailing unnecessary expenditure; but those houses are costing me to build, even now, very much less than inferior houses, having roughly the same accommodation, built by the neighbouring municipality. And yet hon. Members on the Benches opposite will get up and say that private enterprise has failed! The Government always seem to me to be composed of pessimists, that is to say, of people who think that the world is so badly designed, and the universe so unreasonably constructed, that an utterly foolish and unjust policy may end in success. I take that to be true pessimism I am not a pessimist; I think that the world was created on such reasonable lines that, when you base a policy on panic, lack of consideration and injustice,
it usually ends in the chaos in which this policy has involved this unhappy country. The Government proceeds to build, or to intend to build, houses of a better quality than those usually inhabited by the working classes of this country, and it builds them at such enormous costs that the rents it will have to charge, to get a true return and relieve other people from the burden, will amount, in many cases, to between 40s. and 50s. a week. Certain lucky people are to be selected, and in every municipality one knows who those people will be. They will be the relatives and friends of the municipal council. Those lucky people are to get their houses at anything up to half their real value, and the miserable wretches who have not the opportunity of getting those houses have to pay the difference. In the large industrial towns in the North, the rents of those houses will have to be 14s. or 15s. The actual economic rent is between 40 and 50s., and the difference is going to be made up by the unfortunate slum dweller, who is obliged to live in a slum because he can only pay some 5s. or 6s. a week for his house. The poor man in the slum has no chance whatsoever of getting those new houses, because he cannot pay even this absurd conventional rent which is going to be charged for them: and yet, through his rates and taxes he is going to pay for his richer and more lucky neighbour. Any policy based upon an injustice of that sort is bound to fail, as this present policy has failed.
There are some things which the State can do, and do admirably. Many hon. Members present will probably have read what is commonly termed the Tudor-Walters' Report. To my mind, that report is one of immense value. After careful study and comparison with textbooks, it enables anyone to start building houses, and I have to admit my own very great indebtedness to it. I am no architect, and yet I have had to be the architect of my own houses; I am no builder, and yet I have had to be the builder of my own houses. I am very deeply indebted, indeed, to that Report, and I can thoroughly recommend it to any hon. Members who may not have read it. It seems to me that the dissemination of information is distinctly a function of the Government, and one of which no one can complain. There is another function, that is the function
of experiment. During the War I got home on leave when I was able and experimented in new methods of building houses, and it may be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman, and possibly of use to the Government, if I tell them that those experiments were based upon concrete buildings. As far as they went, they gave great prospects of ultimate success and of economic building. But the whole thing was knocked on the head once for all about the time of the Armistice by the rise in the price of cement, and even now, with increased wages and the increased cost of bricks, I am convinced that it is very much cheaper to build in brick than in concrete, provided only you get bricklayers to lay the bricks.
The present method of building houses is undoubtedly primitive in many respects, and I look to the future, I hope assisted by a research department in the Ministry of Health, devoted to housing, to produce a new system of building which will economise immensely. For the present we must stick to bricks and mortar and possibly various forms of concrete blocks and similar materials. But a real step in building will be taken when houses are manufactured in manufactories, and then put up on the site. The difficulty of the present method is that you cannot build by artificial light and you cannot build in bad weather. If houses could be constructed in manufactories, under cover, and then be transported to the site and erected there, we should be able to have a vastly greater period during any given year in which houses could be built. Probably the ultimate end of housing, so far as our generation is concerned, will be the manufacture of houses from concrete or similar material, cast hollow and including in the casting perhaps the whole side of a house, or at any rate one storey, that such casting will be made, just as iron and steel castings are made, in a factory under cover. On withdrawal from the mould they will he stacked and weathered, and then the customer will come to the manufactory, look at the book of plans, and say, "I want a house like that," and in a day or two the house will be delivered and put down on the site. But that is for, the future. The connection with this Debate comes in in this way, that the experimental work will be extremely ex-
pensive because it means the erection of very large works, with proper machinery and proper iron moulds. But I think that very large sums of money might very well be devoted to a research department in housing on a large scale. The question whether people can pay economic rents was not solved very easily. I built houses, and I am going on building them, and I told the tenants that I charge them rents equivalent to 6 per cent. on the outlay and expenses. Those rents amounted to 18s. a week without rates. I have a waiting list as long as my arm, without advertising or anything of the sort. If I got hundreds of houses built, hundreds of people would pay an economic rent on them. I stated some little time ago that the present policy was a failure, and I think the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman are sufficient proof of that failure. He said that some 70,000 houses had been actually started. He told us that through bonds, mortgages, and other devices some £30,000,000 had been raised. I should like to know where the balance is to be got from with which these houses are to be constructed. 70,000 houses, at the prices which obtain now, will cost just over £100,000,000. Towards that we have got £30,000,000. Where is the other £70,000,000 coming from? If the Government policy were to succeed by any chance, it means that this country would be involved in an expenditure of between £800,000,000 and £1,000,000,000 but does any Member of the Committee assume for a moment that there is the faintest prospect of raising anything like that sum at present?
To come back to a practical point, I am a member of a small local authority, and I want the Committee to understand how these things work out actually in the country with the people who have to carry out the policy which the right hon. Gentleman embodied in the Act of last year. In common with very many other small local authorities throughout the country the whole of our debt was held in small amounts at 5 per cent. by depositors in loans withdrawable at call. Every penny of these loans is now in the form of an overdraft on the bank inasmuch as every depositor called up his money, because he can get so much more than 5 per cent. for it elsewhere. We gave permission to our clerk to advertise short
date loans or loans withdrawable at call at 6 per cent., but not a penny of money was obtained. A neighbouring city of very large size indeed, with 750,000 inhabitants, also advertised for loans at 6 per cent and got practically nothing out of it. The result is that our authority is paying 7½ per cent, in place of the 5 per cent. they formerly paid for deposits. On top of that, the right hon. Gentleman's Department said we had to build 250 houses at a cost of something like £300,000, in a district where a penny rate brings in about £150. Naturally when a demand was made on a small public authority of that sort, there was consternation. In order to help this little authority out of its difficulty I suggested that I would build 200 of these 250 houses. Then as a favour the right hon. Gentleman allowed my poor unfortunate district to get off with 50 houses instead of 250. The 50 houses will cost us between £65,000 and £70,000 at present rates. What is a local authority to do under these conditions? We were told by the Government that we should never be obliged to spend more than a penny rate. Does any intelligent local authority believe that the rates of the town will not in the long run have to bear practically the whole expense of the Government's housing policy? We have had complaints to-night on both sides of the House as to the delay of the Ministry in passing plans. By delaying and by insisting upon all these little points of detail and putting off housing schemes month after month, the Ministry has made itself extremely popular with local authorities. They have an excuse for putting off the ruin of their districts.
I come to the more practical question of the cost of building. Here again I have an indictment against the Government policy. We have got to the condition now that costs, both of labour and material, are mounting week by week. When I say the cost of labour is mounting, sometimes the actual money value of the wages does not mount, but we get perhaps a little less work done for the same money values, and it comes to the same thing. To my mind, and I am speaking from some little experience, the real trouble and the real fundamental reason of the increase in the cost of building is the policy of the Government. They created in the building trade a condition of affairs for which speculators all over
the world have been praying ever since speculation was invented. They created a complete corner. In other words, in a market where supplies are already small—supplies both of labour and material—they have introduced a customer with apparently endless money to spend, and determined to spend it, whatever the price charged, and that is what speculators throughout the history of the world, in every nation, have been trying to bring about, and the right hon. Gentleman has done it at last. Last night we did more to solve the housing problem than the right hon. Gentleman will ever do, even if he averages three housing Bills a year, as he is doing at present. We have removed, first of all; the real cause of the trouble. To my mind there are other causes which have to be removed also. I will come really to the fundamental difficulty and the fundamental reason why we are not getting houses built, and that is the Housing Act of 1919, helped by the subsequent Act. The effect of giving that subsidy to private builders has simply been to raise the average cost of building by an equivalent amount. I went very carefully into the figures before this proposal came into force, and as near as we can judge, averaging the price of these houses with those built under the main Act, one finds almost exactly that the subsidy granted has come out in increased costs, and to my mind that is always the result of subsidies, that if you subsidise any particular commodity, you immediately send up the price. So that I have the honour also to be at variance with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Tudor Walters).
There was a possibility at one time of the Government stepping in and trying to prevent delay to get over the immediate crisis in housing, but that opportunity has passed. A suggestion was brought before the Government by a very great authority, indeed, but for some reason best known to the Government it was rejected. It was a proposal that if a Government scheme for housing the people was to be brought forward, it must limit the number of houses proposed to be built under that scheme. The suggestion in question, I believe, was to build 100,000 houses or thereabouts. If the Government's scheme, based upon a certain definite and limited number of houses, had been brought into action last year, it is possible that we might have
got the houses, because the Government scheme would have been a complete watertight compartment by itself, and it would not have been wrecked by the building trade. As to the difficulty of the dilution of labour, that is an artificial difficulty created by Government action and Government policy. In this difficulty the Ministry of Labour is also concerned as well as the Ministry of Health. The difficulties have been created by the supposition that it is possible to fix the wages of all trades in the country on a. purely artificial basis and not by bargain between the employer and the men employed. It was a system which was introduced into the manufacture of munitions during the War, and I do not think there is any hon. Member of this Committee who would honestly say, even if he was one of the officials connected with that Ministry, that it was a success. It has resulted in a very high money value for wages and in very high prices for commodities. We have heard in this particular case that the right hon. Gentleman is having conferences with the building trade unions and is offering them a quid pro quo. He has been arguing with them. In my part of the world, in Lancashire, they have a saying, "I am not arguing, I am telling you." The only way to deal with labour in a crisis of this sort is not to argue but to tell them. I have had no difficulty whatever with building trade labour. I am employing no trade union bricklayers, but only soldiers and sailors, and I shall shortly be employing soldiers and sailors in every building trade there is.
The right hon. Gentleman spends his time having conferences with the building trade unions, and that is at the bottom of the whole trouble. The labour troubles in these days are made in Downing Street. It is a matter very much of atmosphere. When one reads in the newspapers that there is great industrial unrest in my part of Lancashire, that strikes are threatened in this, that and the other direction, that looks very terrible in the atmosphere of 10, Downing Street, and as the later editions come in, I suppose the terror in Downing Street becomes worse and worse, but we who live in the midst of strife, in the storm centre, know what value to put upon that sort of newspaper talk. Strikes and threats of strikes are absolutely beneath contempt when you are among them.
It is only when you are sitting in Downing Street that they look so dreadful. If the Minister wishes to get houses built for this unhappy country there is one policy and one policy only, and that is to throw away all his quack remedies, his dodges and devices for getting rid of economic laws, and to stand out of the way and let us do it.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: I beg to move, that the Vote be reduced by £100.
My object in moving the reduction is to draw attention to one particular question, but before doing so I wish to make reference to the remark of the hon. Member (Mr. Hopkinson) that we on this side declared that private enterprise has failed. It never succeeded even in normal times and never will. To talk about private enterprise building all the houses that are needed to-day is to make it perfectly hopeless. My only hope is in the local authorities, aided to some extent by the building societies. I am glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that housing has been started in several places, but I find only 2,000 houses are inhabited, although the Armistice was signed nearly two years ago. Why are there not more houses?

Mr. HOPKINSON: State enterprise.

Mr. EDWARDS: State enterprise won the War, and if the same enterprise had been put into the building of houses that was put into the War we should have succeeded in this enterprise as we did in the War. The right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) called it "officialism" and said that that was the cause. I would call it interference with the local authorities. Sometimes the room is too large, another time the ceiling is too high by six inches, sometimes the sites are wrong. In certain cases I know of they have changed the sites three or four times and they are building on much worse sites to-day than the first one which was rejected. I know of a corporation which built houses on a certain piece of land eight or ten years ago and they wanted to build a few more since the War on that same piece of land, but they were not permitted to build the name class of house. They had to build inferior houses ten years after the others had been built. That scheme was held up for months because of that objection. There was so much interference that the local authority were led to believe that the obstruction was being done purposely
to delay housing. Interference has been the great thing that has injured housing. I am glad to hear that the Housing Bonds are succeeding to some extent. I was very doubtful about that, and I am still very sceptical as to their great success. If they do succeed, I shall be only too glad, because we need houses so badly.
I want to challenge the right of the Minister of Health to raise the subsidy on houses by £100 without asking the authority of this House. I do not want to raise the point as to whether £250 is too much. That is not my point. I am not going to say whether £150 was enough. The point is, whether the right hon. Gentleman had the right to increase the subsidy without getting the authority of the House. Originally there was a flat rate of £150, but that was changed to a system of payments varying from £160 to £140 and £130, and on the Second Reading Debate the right hon. Gentleman contended that that was better than a flat rate of £150, which would encourage one type of house. The Paymaster-General spoke subsequently, and he referred to the £115,000,000 which was set aside for this purpose, and said that we should get 100,000 houses for that £15,000,000. If this subsidy has been raised by £100 it means that we cannot get 100,000 houses; we can only get at the best 70,000 houses. If I take the Clause by itself I should have to agree that the Minister had a right to do what he has done, but I am raising the point as to whether, in all the circumstances, in view of the definite figures given in the White Paper, and having regard to the speeches that were made on Second Reading, we should be governed only by the mere reading of the Clause. If so, we shall have to make sure that there is greater detail put into Bills in future In the Debate on the Clouse the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Trevelyan Thomson) made frequent reference to the £150 subsidy, and it was also referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Major Barnes). Therefore there was a distinct understanding as to what was to be the subsidy, and now, without any reference to this House, that subsidy is raised by £100. If the right hon. Gentleman has the right to raise it by £100, he has the right to raise it by £1,000, so long as he keeps within the £15,000,000. A question was put to the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer on this point a few weeks ago and he was asked whether he had been consulted when this subsidy was raised. He said that he had been consulted, but so long as it was kept within the £15,000,000 he had not much to do with it. That rather goes to prove what I say, that if the subsidy can be raised by £100 it can be raised by £1,000 so long as they keep within the £15,000,000. That is a serious matter for the House as a whole. Surely we have some rights and privileges, and if a Clause is passed on the strength of certain data and after a long debate we ought to have something to say when that Clause is interfered with in administration. I challenge the right of the right hon. Gentleman to increase the subsidy without first coming to the House for authority.

Mr. T. THOMSON: I think the Committee will regret that the time allotted to this Vote is so exceedingly short and that the Debate will be interrupted at 8.15.

Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. May I ask whether we can continue this Debate after eleven o'clock or whether the eleven o'clock rule is only suspended for other business?

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I think that is hardly a point of Order, but for the information of the hon. Member I may tell him that this Debate ends at eleven o'clock.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. THOMSON: We all regret that the time is so limited, and therefore I think that the Minister must not complain if he gets more kicks than halfpence in the discussion. We have no time now to commend him, but only to raise those points on which we differ. I want to put two points to him which, though they may be trivial, are of importance. Time after time the local authorities have asked the Minister why he would not exercise the powers he has or else take further powers to deal with the occupation of houses when they become empty in any given area. When a house falls empty the landlord refuses to let in many cases because he wants to sell with vacant possession, and that has resulted in a large number of houses being kept unoccupied which otherwise might have been let. The Minister replied to various questions I put that the number was only small, but I know in my own district that there are
over twenty houses of that kind now. That number may not be very many, but if you multiply it by the population throughout the length and breadth of the land you will see that there are between six and seven thousand empty houses which might be occupied at once. Since the Minister has told us that only 2,000 houses had been built so far under his schemes, I think that this number of six or seven thousand is very significant and worthy of his consideration as to whether he should not take powers at once to remove the gross injustice which men feel when they are walking about the streets and see these houses kept empty and cannot find a home. I had a case brought to my notice only yesterday of an ex-service man who had been round to hundreds of houses to try and get lodgings—he made seven hundred visits—and he could only get a cellar, for which he had to pay 14s. a week. I know of another case of a woman in lodgings with herself, her husband, and seven children. They are living in one room, and the landlord of a house in a neighbouring street, although it has been empty for some time, refuses to let it. That is a case of abominable overcrowding, while in a neighbouring street there is a house with two bedrooms and kitchen being kept empty. That house was sold two months ago for £275, but the purchaser did not desire to let it, and he will not sell it again unless he can get £80 or £100 premium. That house cost originally £120 only. That case is typical of hundreds in our towns and villages. This sort of thing is causing very great unrest and illfeeling—more than any other single action. Surely it would have been simple for the Minister to have taken steps to-include in the Rent Restrictions Act a Clause giving local authorities the power to take immediate possession, or else to cause houses to be occupied by those who are wanting them. I appeal to him to take steps before the House rises to deal with this question. The Minister and the Government can, when they so desire, rush ill-considered legislation through this House, and I think they should use some expedition in dealing with this matter. If they did so, it would at any rate double and treble the number of houses which the Minister's own schemes have so far produced.
Yet another point of difficulty in many towns is that of getting labour, and also
dealing with the available labour to the best advantage. In my own town two or three large cinemas have been put up since the War. We find our own housing scheme—we have some hundreds of houses under weigh—are held up by a shortage of materials and labour, because the cinema buildings are taking up all the bricks and all the cement and all the labour required.

HON. MEMBERS: Nonsense.

Mr. THOMSON: That may be so. I agree it is perfect nonsense, but there is no disputing the facts, and they are typical of what is happening in many towns. Firms say, "We shall have to stop our schemes under the municipalities unless we can get bricks." Another firm says, "In our neighbourhood a cinema is going to be built, and we have to put up with inferior bricks from a distance." These firms cannot get labourers simply because the builders of cinemas are paying much more than the market and trade rates in order to attract builders. What can the ex-service man think when he comes home and cannot find anywhere to go, and has to crowd his family seven or nine into one room, when he can walk about the streets and see thousands of pounds being spent in building these cinemas. I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to get more drastic powers to deal with all these things. Power was given to local authorities in the Bill passed last year to obtain builders and labourers, but often local authorities make these things personal matters. They feel that if they veto these buildings, which belong to somebody they know, they may be burdening their own shoulders. If a general Bill was passed and luxury building was prohibited in any area where there was a shortage of labour it would give great satisfaction. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to take this into consideration. He said he would consider it many months ago. This is causing considerable dissatisfaction in the land. I appeal to him also to extend the period in the original Act whereby the local authorities had to submit schemes for slum clearance areas. He has suggested an increase in the subsidy to private builders, and he has extended the period over which these subsidised houses can be built, and I ask him to extend the period in which the local authorities may submit their plans for
the rebuilding of the slum areas. He referred to the improvement in the health of the people and the greater reduction of the death rate for children and adults, and he said that he expected further results to come from the better environment and improved housing conditions. Where the municipalities are willing to clear the slum areas and where their time has been taken up by building houses on the outskirts of the town, and they have had no time to produce the plans for dealing with these slum areas, I think the time ought to be extended. Notwithstanding the complaints that have been made, I think that in a very short time we shall find that the rebuilding of the towns of England will be on such modern, sanitary, and decent lines, thanks to the measures the Government have taken, and that the death rate will be further reduced. It has been reduced during the last few years, but I think it will be found in the later part of the century that there will be a tremendous reduction of the death rate, thanks to the more sound, healthy, and decent surroundings provided by the Act.

Earl WINTERTON: I wish to call attention to what the right hon. Gentleman said in the discussion this afternoon. Although there have been a small number of Members present during the Debate, a very large number of them have risen in order to catch the eye of the Chairman, and, although I understand that the Committee is going to adjourn at a quarter past eight, the right hon. Gentleman himself (Dr. Addison) took up no less than one and a half hours for his speech. I would like respectfully to call his attention and that of the other Members of the Government to the progressive increase of the curtailment of the time of private Members of this House. Although the right hon. Gentleman's speech was interesting and important, the Government should realise that a Committee of the House of Commons is a very important organisation, especially with the huge Estimates with which we have to deal at present, and the right of private Members to criticise these Estimates and to discuss the policy of the Government is almost as important a duty as that of the Government itself in expounding its policy. I want to refer, if I may, to the brave speech made by the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson). The hon. Gentleman made one reference to
something which has hardly been referred to at all this afternoon. He referred to the importance of economic facts in considering this question, and economic facts always, in the long run, beat political pretence. If houses cannot be built within a reasonable time and within some region of an economic basis, either there will never be any houses—which may result in disturbances and possibly revolution—or the State will eventually become bankrupt. The whole of the housing policy under the State scheme required properly to house the people of this country, if carried out at the present price of building houses, will mean that the State will become bankrupt. That contingency has hardly been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and only a few speakers this afternoon have mentioned it. It really is a fact which the Labour party have got to face. Either houses somehow have to be built more cheaply or else the houses will not be built, and that would mean tremendous hardships for their own class with possible revolutionay outbreaks on the part of some of them.
I am sure that every Labour Member of this House would dislike to see that. If again the houses were built on the present basis of building, every building expert in this country will agree with me when I say that the country must eventually become bankrupt. With that situation how is it possible for anyone to come down here and regard without grave apprehension the sort of speeches we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, saying that while we have not advanced far we are better off than we were last year and that eventually we are going to get well into the swing. We have not really dealt with the main problem, which is that houses cannot be built economically in this country and that the difference between an economic basis and the basis on which houses are being built at present is greater than when we discussed these estimates a year ago. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one appalling dismal thing—that the cost of one class of house which could be built for £800 last January has now gone up to £900. I throw out this challenge not in controversy to hon. Gentlemen opposite. What are they going to do about it? One reason why this cost has gone up enormously is because every few months men in the building trade are asking higher wages, while they are lay-
ing far fewer bricks and doing far less work.
I admit the difficulties of hon. Members opposite and the difficulties of the trade unions, but the Committee ought to face the fact that owing to various reasons it is becoming more and more difficult to build economically, and that in every period of six months in each year the cost of labour rises with the result that houses are farther than ever from being built on an economic basis. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking on the 13th of June last year, referred to the number of building schemes which have already been undertaken and referred to a list which he said he would issue that evening. Sheffield, he said, had a building scheme of 653 houses, Birmingham had started on 74, Bristol 71, and there was a large number of cases—20 or 30—where houses had been begun. Bath, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Yarmouth, Bolton and Middlesbrough, Ipswich and Norwich. This is a statement as to the number of places where they had begun work although it did not necessarily mean bricks in every case. Anybody reading that speech last year would have had the hope that in the case of these large towns, though it was eight months since the Armistice, yet as they had started on their schemes many houses would have been built before now. The White Paper issued this morning shows what has been done in every one of those towns. In Bath two houses have been built, in Ipswich nine houses, in Norwich not a single house, in Sheffield—the only one which shows any considerable increase—143, in Middlesbrough none, Birmingham 105, Bristol 6, Yarmouth none, Bolton none. That is typical of the progress that has been made with the houses. All these places were specifically mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman last year as places where schemes were under way.
Somehow or other the Government have got to deal with this question of the ever-increasing cost. A great many of us on this side are not satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman has taken sufficient steps to go into the question of the cost of materials. I make no accusation against sellers of building materials except to say that certain points seem to me to require investigation. I may give one very short example of what I mean. I had occasion to look into the figures the other day as to the cost of
river sand. Three tons were bought from a builders' merchant in London at a cost of £3 7s. 6d. I purchased exactly similar sand in Surrey at 7s. per ton or a guinea for the three tons plus cartage which worked out at £1 5s., and the difference in the price of the three tons in the two cases worked out at the sum of one guinea. I should be prepared to allow a reasonable amount for the storage of that sand with the builders' merchant in London and a reasonable profit, but the difference still leaves a great deal to be accounted for in the way of undue profit. I believe that there are many other cases of the same kind which require investigation. The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to that. I understand that his Committee has not yet reported.

Dr. ADDISON: It is not my Committee. The Noble Lord must not put down to me something done by somebody else for whom I am not answerable.

Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Gentleman has the misfortune to belong to a Government in which there is no co-operation, so that one Department never knows what another Department is doing. This Committee has had time to conclude at least its preliminary investigations and produce a report. All parties are anxious to know what conclusion the Committee have come to on the subject of materials and whether they are being held up and there is undue profiteering. Until we have those facts it is very difficult to bring home to the representatives of the Labour party the folly of the members of the building trade unions in not being prepared in the existing situation to relax some of their regulations as regards dilution, number of bricks to be laid, and so on, but as long as the Government ignore the question how far this ever increasing cost of building is due to the increased cost of labour and the increased cost of material it is very difficult to deal with the matter.
We shall spare no efforts to bring home what we regard as the enormity of the action of the unions in refusing to allow discharged soldiers, who are perfectly competent, to work at building trades, and we are only waiting until we get a little more information on the subject. In conclusion, I support what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. P. Lloyd-
Greame) when he said that what was needed is publicity. The House and the country, and the Press and this Committee, need to be taken more and more into the confidence of the Government. We want to know exactly the reason of the ever-increasing cost and why the cost is going up We want to know all about negotiations with the trade unions, about restrictions, dilution, etc. When the country does know precisely what institutions are to blame, if they were the most powerful trade unions in the country, there would be such a burst of indignation from hundreds of thousands of people who care more for the interests of the country than for any trade union, the trade unions will be compelled to give way, and manufacturers and merchants who are keeping up the price of building material will also be compelled to give way. I appeal to the Government to let us have more and more publicity in this most critical and dangerous situation.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the satisfactory and encouraging statement which he made in introducing the Estimates to-day. I do not propose to discuss the all-important question of housing, though it has a very important bearing on the general question of public health, but to refer to one or two important points which have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement. There is no question that the general health of the country has undergone an extraordinary improvement during the last 25 years. That has been due to the excellent sanitary measures which have been in existence, and which have been carried into effect so well as to cause practically the disappearance of great scourges which we had in our midst before, such as typhoid, small-pox, and typhus. I am very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for greater provision, for larger sums of money. for medical research, because we feel, having very carefully to consider trying to do our best to eradicate such important diseases as influenza, scarlet fever, measles, and diphtheria, that we do not know sufficient about the causation of these important diseases which cause such an enormous death-rate every year, and I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion of applying more money to medical research will be the way to discover the causes of those illnesses.
I would like to refer for a very few moments to the very important question of the hospitals of this country. We are all very proud of the voluntary hospitals in England. They have been the pride of England and the envy of other countries, but we have now come to a time when these hospitals are unable, through insufficient support financially, to carry on the magnificent work which they have done for the last 300 or 400 years. Up to the present practically the whole hospital treatment of the great mass of the people of this country has been left entirely to the Poor Law, and we find now that there is a great intermediate class of the nation who are entirely overlooked in hospital accommodation, but they do not propose to accept charity and they resent very much having to apply to the Poor Law. No doubt England up to the present time has not had an efficient hospital system. I hope sincerely that the right hon. Gentleman in framing a broad and wise policy for the treatment of diseases in hospitals—because a great many of them can be treated only in hospitals—will, by combining and retaining the great voluntary hospitals and in some way associating the great Poor Law infirmaries, many of which are quite empty and not required by Poor Law patients, be enabled to provide a national scheme of hospitals which will be acceptable and beneficial to the whole nation.
I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that we should at all costs encourage the voluntary hospitals and in no way interfere with their efficiency, but I am quite certain that financial support will have to be given to voluntary hospitals by the State if they are to continue the excellent work they have done for so long. With regard to the transference of the Poor Law infirmaries we have had an instance already in Bradford. With the permission of the right hon. Gentleman that city has transferred or transformed the Poor Law infirmary into a municipal hospital. I hope that that experiment will be copied in all our large centres, so that hospitals may be provided on a national basis in which the patients will be able to pay for what they receive. Another very important question is that of the treatment of mental disorders. What is most required is that there should be facilities for the treatment of those persons afflicted with
temporary mental disorder without their being certified as insane. I feel sure that if such a course were pursued, and it was made possible to treat these temporary patients, a very large number of people would be saved from drifting into hopeless insanity, and that in that way a very large amount of the accommodation in the asylums would not be required. In the treatment of mental disorders I hope there will be no association whatever with any lunacy authority, and that treatment will be obtainable in some hospitals totally unconnected with a lunatic asylum. If after six weeks, or three months, such treatment is found to be unavailing, they could be certified as insane persons. I was very glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is sympathetic towards what is a crying and urgent reform.
I would like very briefly to mention another and, perhaps, the most important disease with which we have to deal—tuberculosis. No fewer than 60,000 people in this country alone die annually from tuberculosis. We know that tuberculosis is a preventable disease, which ought not to exist in any civilised community. I am sure that the efforts which are being made by the Ministry will in a comparatively short time result in limiting the enormous amount of the disease in this country and in providing means for its cure. I sincerely hope the right hon. Gentleman will keep in close association with the Ministry of Agriculture in trying to stamp out tuberculosis amongst dairy cows. We have to remember that 10 per cent. of the samples of milk submitted for sale to the public contain the living germs of tuberculosis. Children and infants in drinking that milk are now affected to a great extent by various forms of tubercle. I hope that the two Ministers will combine to formulate some practical scheme by which the public, and especially the children, will be provided with milk that is perfectly pure. At present we have no sovereign remedy for this disease, but the methods outlined by the Minister of Health to-day will do far more than any millions we can spend in providing mere sanatorium treatment. Sanatorium treatment cannot possibly be expected to effect any marvellous or certain cures after a few weeks or months' residence. What we want to aim at is the provision of permanent centres, where those affected will receive sanatorium treatment and at
the same time be taught some occupation and, it may be, have their wives and children living near them. I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are 35,000 soldiers and sailors affected with tuberculosis, and to impress upon my right hon. Friend and the Committee the extreme urgency and importance of giving these men treatment in sanatoria and settlements. I know the right hon. Gentleman referred to it, but the matter is of such great urgency that I hope he will not mind my reminding him of it. I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-day, with its outline of far-reaching schemes, has fully justified the formation of the Ministry. I look forward to very great results in the future, and I certainly hope that all his good intentions will be realised as quickly as possible.

Mr. SEDDON: I want to call attention to a remark made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson). Dealing with the increase of subsidies, he made a statement based upon his own knowledge and inquiries that each housing subsidy as it has been granted has gone into the increased cost of material, and that so far from helping to solve the housing problem, it has helped to fill the pocket of some exploiter. If that is true, the subsidy has become a menace and a danger as well as a great burden upon the general community. I would emphasise what was said by the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton), that we want every inquiry into this housing difficulty, whether in regard to the workers or in regard to those who deal in materials, and if the statements made by the hon. Member for Mossley are correct, those concerned ought to be pilloried on the floor of the House and throughout the country. Much has been said as to the ever-growing increases of wages. I am quite sure that many of the workers themselves, if they realised that these increases meant that many of their fellow-workers had to be housed worse than cattle, would come with a better frame of mind for dealing with this question. After all, in a great national requirement like this we want to develop what I might call community of interest and civic consciousness in every section, so that the seller of raw material and the seller of labour would recognise that they are co-partners in relieving a great
menace to many thousands of people who are badly housed.
The hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Lloyd-Greame) raised another question of interest, and from a different point of view the hon. Member for Middles brough (Mr. T. Thomson) seemed to gloat over it. The hon. Member for Hendon was referring to Labour's responsibility regarding the housing problem. I think, at the moment, he was thinking about the large number of soldiers and sailors who are still unemployed and who, with goodwill on both sides, could be used to ease the housing difficulty. The hon. Member said the cast-iron rule of dealing with luxury buildings was creating a lop-sided laboursupply in this country. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough seemed to argue that all over the country brick setters or carpenters were being taken from the building of houses and were being put on the building of cinemas, and that because he had a single instance in one locality, every part of the country was in exactly the same condition, and that such people were building cinemas without rhyme or reason and without consideration for the housing of the people in those localities. I say that that statement is far from being correct. I happen to know much better than the hon. Member those engaged in that industry. Let him not forget that it provides the enjoyment of 20,000,000 of the population and that they are not merely men who are looking to their own main end. There may be one here and there who is doing so, but, broadly speaking, those who are responsible for this great agency of amusement for the working classes are not anxious to take away any section of those engaged in building. They are just as anxious to see the people housed as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. The hon. Member forgets that in this class of building there is a great number of people who could not be employed or will not be employed on the building of houses. There are wood carvers. They are not going to do ordinary carpenters' work. There are cabinet makers. They will not go to ordinary cabinet work. There are carpet makers and a whole army of other people who find employment. I wish to make my protest against the libel that has been uttered with reference to these
people time and time again in this House. I say that they are just as honourable as any Members of this House and just as anxious to see the housing problem settled. But if they can prevent lopsidedness of labour producing unemployment on the one side, they are doing a public service and are not deserving of the hon. Member's castigation. I hope that when the hon. Member gets back to his constituency he will dispute, if he can, my testimony to their good citizenship.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. GRUNDY: One or two hon. Members have complained about the Minister of Health taking up a very long time in connection with his speech. It may have been a long time, but it was not a moment too long. My complaint is that we have so short a time to debate the matters upon which he informed us. As one who has taken part in public health matters and municipal work for the last 20 years, and has been head of the Public Health Committee of his town for the last 12 years, I am interested in many of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman. We have all cause for congratulation in the statement that he made with respect to the reduction of infantile mortality in this country. Taking a series of years, he gave a reduction from 155 down to about 80 or 90. In my own town, largely through some of the reforms that were brought about by the Minister of Health and previous gentlemen who held the position, infantile mortality has been reduced from 187 per 1,000 to 97 per 1,000 during the last few years. But in spite of that reduction I was pleased to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied, and that he thinks that more can be done. How can you expect children to be healthy and strong and to become decent citizens when they are brought up under the conditions and in homes where a geranium could not live. The problem is acute.
I should like also to say a word of commendation for the way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke about the centres that had been formed for dealing with venereal disease. The figures that he gave of the increased numbers attending show that the people have confidence in the privacy and secrecy of these centres. We can hope for very great results to the people suffering from that dread disease. One of the points that
struck me in his speech was in connection with sanatoria. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that during last year accommodation had been built for 2,000 beds. I am sure he knows that there is a very grave deficiency now in the accommodation at the sanatoria, and I hope he will do everything in his power to expedite the matter. There were one or two matters at which I was surprised that he said nothing. If he has time to reply I should like him to give the House some indication of what he intends to do to carry out the recommendations of the International Conference held at Washington in October and November of last year dealing with working women before and after the birth of a child. I should like to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to Article 3 of the Recommendations of that Conference, and to ask him whether he intends to bring in legislation to deal with that matter. This is what the Conference recommended:
That working women shall not be permitted to work during six weeks following her confinement; she shall have the right to leave her work if she produces a medical certificate stating that her confinement will probably take place within six weeks, and that whilst she is absent from her work she shall be paid benefit sufficient for the full and healthy maintenance of herself and child, provided either out of public funds or by means of a system of insurance.
The Minister for Health, on 17th June, I think, was asked the following question by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring:
When does he propose to introduce a Bill to give legislative sanction to the proposals regarding the employment of women before and after childbirth, which were adopted at the Washington International Labour Conference.
The answer of the Minister for Health was:
The British official representatives at the Washington Conference refrained from voting on this question. The extent to which the British Government shall adhere to the recommendations of the Conference is at present under consideration. The matters involved largely affect insurance questions, and they are now being carefully considered.
My point is that whether the British official representatives voted or not, the question was brought about by that International Conference for the purpose of uplifting the whole standard of life—lifting up the nations below us to our standard and generally raising the stan-
dard of life. I think we are in honour bound to that Conference to bring in legislation to give effect to those recommendations. I ask the Minister, if he replies, kindly to state what he proposes to do.
Another point I should like to mention is in regard to the child welfare centres. These have done a very great and beneficent work wherever they have been opened. In my own locality we dealt with hundreds of children; thousands of visits were paid, and because in the adjoining areas there were no child welfare centres open, we threw our centre open to the whole of the surrounding public. In my opinion, the Minister of Health is not putting sufficient force behind the public authorities to compel them to open child welfare centres, because in some of the localities that I have named women had to bring their children miles to this welfare centre. There has been some little quickening, especially in the county council area. There have been one or two opened within the last few months in altogether unsuitable premises. They may be temporary premises, but they are altogether unsuitable, and I am sure the Minister of Health knows well that the child welfare centres cannot gain that popularity to which they are entitled unless they are suitably adapted to the purpose. I was present at the opening of one about two months ago where the women had to walk up three flights of steps. I admit it was a temporary building, and probably it was a beginning that will tend to grow, but places like that are altogether unsuitable. With three flights of steps, with no accommodation for the perambulators, welfare centres can hardly gain the popularity and confidence of the mothers that we want to see. My own experience of our own welfare centre is that nothing pleases the mothers so much as finding the voluntary ladies' committees holding meetings amongst the mothers, giving them tea, and conversing with them before the birth of a child, and how to look after the child when it is born. When the mothers bring the children to the welfare centres, nothing pleases them so much as to watch the growth and development of the child. Yet at two centres that I have been present at the opening of within the last few weeks, no
weighing machine was available, and they were short of other requisites. I ask the Minister of Health, whose sincerity is beyond question, not only to quicken the pace of the governing bodies that are slow, and to see that child welfare centres are established, but also to take some interest in the suitabilty of the premises, and to see that those already opened are provided with all that makes these places attractive.
In connection with maternity homes, in my own place again we have purchased a building that probably will provide some 15 beds. What I complain of is that the Minister of Health and his Department are not putting sufficient pressure on municipal authorities in these matters. I wish the amount put down for this work was more, because I know the good that it has done. Children are born in places under conditions that are a disgrace to civilisation, and in which the safety of the mother is imperilled and the child itself can hardly be expected to survive. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to expedite the building of these homes, knowing something of the good they have done, and the possible good they might do. I should like to refer to the number of children who are still in the workhouses of this country. Has the right hon. Gentleman no statement to make as to what steps he intends to take to fetch these children out of the workhouses? Has he no statement to make as to how long it will be before he co-ordinates this system with the municipal bodies? What is happening in respect of the treatment of tuberculosis in my own town? The Guardians have a sanatorium there, and just across the road the municipal body has a sanatorium, and the administration of both places has to be kept up. You still have your workhouse schools. You have your workhouse hospitals, and hospitals kept up by voluntary effort or by the State. I do think on these matters the right hon. Gentleman might make some statement, because I am sure the whole of this Committee on public health matters is in accord. Members may complain about the cost of housing, but they never complain about the cost of the health services. We know that health is cheaper than disease, that prevention is better than cure, and it is only by looking after the children of this country that we can expect
to get out of the Class C, which the War brought to light. That is as far as my criticism goes, and its object is to try, if possible, to get the Minister of Health to expedite these matters which are of vital importance to the health of the people of this country.

Mr. G. BARNES: I wish to raise one point, but before I come to it I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down upon having delivered a most interesting and eloquent speech, with most of which I cordially agree. In the course of his speech he made reference to the Washington Conference and quoted the convention drawn up there with regard to maternity. He also said, quite truly, that the Government delegates had refrained from voting, and he wanted to know the reason. The reason is perfectly plain. The Government delegates had no mandate, and therefore they refrained from voting, because they did not want to pledge the Government to carry out the convention. The hon. Gentleman considers that we are pledged, nevertheless, because we were represented at Washington. In a sense that may be so, but let me tell him and the Committee that the structure of the labour organisation, that part of the Peace Treaty having to do with labour, was very carefully considered, having that particular point in view. As a matter of fact, the Governments represented at a conference are under a moral obligation to consider the resolutions of that conference. They are properly free to reject them if they think proper, and therefore it is of the utmost importance, if these conferences are to be of assistance to labour throughout the world, that they should not be used for mere propaganda, but should be used all the time with the single object in view of getting practical results, to adopt resolutions and covenants, and only to adopt resolutions arid covenants as to which there may be a reasonable prospect—a pretty sure prospect—that all the Governments represented will pass into law, not in the dim and distant future, but in the year following such convention. These conferences are to be held every year, and therefore the object of the conference is not to pass pious resolutions in regard to things which may be practicable 50 years hence, but in regard to things which we hope and believe may be passed a very few months after the conference has been
held. It was because we thought, rightly or wrongly, that the convention as framed was of this propaganda character that we declined to vote for it.
I rose, however, to make an appeal to the colleagues of the party, of which I was once a Member, and with which all my sympathies still lie. I want to appeal to them to use the influence they possess in regard to Labour matters, with special reference to housing. I believe with the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that good housing and good health go together, and that you cannot have good health without good housing. A few months ago I noticed in the papers that a resolution had been passed by a Labour Conference demanding that the Government should build a million houses, and, not only that, but the resolution demanded the building of that million houses at once. What does that involve? It seems to me it involves two things. It involves that you should have more labour in the construction of houses, and that you should have the labour in the construction of houses apply itself with zest to doing all it possibly can, consistent with its own health. Therefore. I think it involves upon hon. Gentlemen—I do not like, or want to lecture them; I am speaking as one man to another—who have more influence with the Labour classes in the country—and rightly so—than anybody else, that they should use their influence, first of all, to get, if possible, the building tradesmen to consider the question of how they can increase the number of competent builders of houses in a shorter time than ordinarily, under normal circumstances, is required for the purpose. Bricklayers, carpenters and other people of that sort generally serve five years' apprenticeship. I would ask them to make an appeal to the working men engaged in building houses, and to say to them, "We cannot afford to wait for five years for the ordinary normal apprenticeship, and that some means can be found, and should be found, to increase the number of builders, so that building can be got on more speedily and expeditiously than it is being done."
The second point is this, that each one engaged in the building of houses should do as much as an individual can towards the building of those houses in a given time. I am going to say something which may probably bring me into trouble, but
I think somebody ought to say it. There is a disposition in the mind of the average workman not to do his best in the way of turning out products, and there is a very laudable feeling underlying that. He has an idea that if he does less work there will be more work for his mate to do. We all know that the average workman has that feeling. I want to say that to my mind the workman in adopting that attitude is simply paying homage to a stupid fetish—because it is nothing else. Instead of being good for himself, or his class, or to any human being it is to a large extent the cause of this slowness which we all regret in the maturing of the housing schemes. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the cost."]—and the cost as well.
So far as the wage cost is concerned, under modern conditions of industry, with machines being more and more a factor in the calculation, wages do not matter so very much if the men only turn out the stuff. I have no intimate knowledge of building, but I know the feeling in the mind of the average workman. He thinks, as I say, that the less work one man does, the more is left for another. I say that no man can practise that doctrine without being morally the worse for it. I say that no man can practise it without weakening himself and the community economically, and that, far from such men making work for other people, the contrary is the case. Provided only we have production in proper proportions, then the more production there is the more work there is all round. It would, therefore, be a fitting thing if those who have most influence with labour would induce labour, first of all, to agree as much as possible to an increase of their number, without waiting for that long apprenticeship necessary, perhaps, so far, having regard to the fact that there is any amount of building work to be done by every possible man for the next twenty or thirty years, and hence there need be no fear of unemployment. In the second place, men, in the interests of themselves, their fellows, and the community, should, in the trying time through which we are passing, "buck up" and do as much work as they possibly can.

Mr. MYERS: The criticisms which have been urged from various quarters of the House in respect to the operation of the Trade Unions with regard to housing
schemes, I think, are very considerably exaggerated. There may be, possibly can be, produced cases where something in the nature of objection to dilution in a particular trade can be found. But it is very difficult to persuade a skilled craftsman to admit cheerfully into the trade union to which he may belong unskilled workers to be trained to that occupation at a time when the members of that particular union are unemployed. Hon. Members who have criticised would probably take another point of view if they were in that same position. I agree with everything that has been said: that all labour available, from whatever point of view, should be roped in to the erection of houses. But it ought to be considered that in almost every society in the country which has within itself members who are engaged in the construction of houses, that many of their own members are unemployed, and even the members that are employed recognise, in many cases, that they are engaged in phases of the building industry which do not come within the range of the erection of houses. They wonder how it is that criticism should be urged against them, that they should open their doors to the unskilled labourer to be taught, with their own members unemployed, and those who are employed working in directions which do not come within the range of the erection of houses.

It being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

EDINBURGH BOUNDARIES EXTEN SION AND TRAMWAYS BILL [Lords] (by Order).

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be now considered."

Mr. MACOUISTEN: I beg to move, to leave out the words "now considered" and to add instead thereof the word "re-committed."
I am not moving, of course, the final rejection of this Bill, because it has been subjected to consideration by Committees of both Houses. But I do respectfully submit that when these Committees considered the Bill they did not appear to remember what had been for long, save in very exceptional circumstances, the rule in dealing with the amalgamation of adjacent boroughs. That rule has been given effect to over a long series of years. It is this: that there has to be substantial agreement between the parties with the larger borough which proposes to incorporate the smaller district, unless it can be shown that the smaller district is really an offshoot of the larger borough, or that its inhabitants are composed of those who work in the larger borough, and who have gone out into the county district for the purpose either of greater salubriety or perhaps—of course, this is not said in this case—for the purpose of avoiding the heavy burdens of municipal life while they are really to all intents and purposes a part of the larger borough. Except in cases of that kind, I know of no case in past days of any borough being compulsorily seized, held by the larger borough, and incorporated with it, where there has been almost practical unanimity on the part of the smaller borough in opposition to the proposed incorporation. There is no doubt that that is the case in Leith. The opposition in Leith is of a very strong and grave character. There is almost complete unanimity on the part of the inhabitants of Leith. Therefore a question of principle is involved that goes to affect all future legislation in regard to municipal boroughs. The questtion is one of principle with which it is necessary the whole House should deal. That principle has not been fully considered or given full effect to by these two Committees.
There was quite recently a principle laid down which was merely the enunciation of an old and well-tried principle in these amalgamations of boroughs. It was a Committee appointed at the instance of His Majesty's Government composed of Members of great experience drawn from both Houses of Parliament, and they laid down that, subject to special considerations of public advantage, no Provisional Order or other extension should be brought before Parliament for confirmation which had not previously received the
substantial support of the ratepayers in the areas proposed to be incorporated. That is a very wise principle which has not been given effect to in this case. That is a principle which applies to Imperial affairs, and it has been applied in Ireland, where we refused to incorporate districts which did not wish to be specificially incorporated one with the other. The principle of self-determination can be rightly and properly applied in municipal areas as well as in areas of greater extension.
Any Scotsman who knows the history of Edinburgh and Leith knows that each has its own municipal history and patriotism, and has grown up justly proud of its own corporate life. Each has its own ideals and its own notions of what is the efficient conduct of municipal life and what is not, and there are fundamental differences of opinion between them. Edinburgh is a city of learning, academic and ancient, while Leith is a commercial, busy mercantile town. The two are totally different, and the mere juxtaposition in geographical position has no real bearing on the necessity or the desirability of incorporating or amalgamating these two boroughs, one of which is intensely hostile to the proposal. There is no particular charm in adding a large block of a city to one municipal control. The City of London itself is divided into innumerable boroughs and corporations, all of which are well-conducted, and there is considerable advantage in this arrangement. The Leith people believe in the smaller borough, where they can get the cream of the business men of Leith to take an interest in municipal affairs. They believe that they reach a higher standard of efficiency and get greater consideration for municipal affairs than they would get if they were a small section of a very much larger town.
The cry has been made against the Leith people that this is purely a matter of sentiment. I have heard mankind described as being a creature of sentiment who used his reason to justify his sentiment. Sentiment is the basis of all patriotism, local as well as Imperial, and if this free Parliament forces this amalgamation upon Leith and drives them into the arms of their neighbour, you are doing a very grave injury to the cause of municipal life in all parts of these islands, and you are killing the free growth of municipal patriotism of which Leith is one of
the most shining examples in Scotland. This has been tested over and over again. This is not the first time that the great municipality of Edinburgh has endeavoured to incorporate Leith. This matter goes back to early in last century, when Leith first got full liberty from the hands of Edinburgh, and again in the forties a similar attempt was tried, and once more as recently as 1896.
Practically all the evidence which was placed before this Committee was brought forward again, and it was the same evidence that was given prior to 1896 before a Committee just as wise and competent, and they took the old-fashioned view which has been enunciated that if Leith did not want to be incorporated she should not be forced. It is a fundamental principle in municipal life that if a municipality expresses its desire to be left alone, that desire shall be given effect to if their views have been clearly and unmistakably expressed. There has been a plébiscite in Leith on this question to which nobody can take exception as to the way in which it was taken, or the fact that it represented the views of the people of Leith, because there was an overwhelming majority, something like 87 per cent., against the proposal. After the Committee of another place had expressed the view in favour of this Bill, a second plébiscite was taken, and that was even more decisive against this proposed incorporation.
I know that we have technically the legal right, but what moral right has this House or a Committee of this House to force the people of Leith into a position of this kind, and compel them against their practically unanimous wish to be driven into a corporate life which they clearly and unmistakably express their desire not to be associated with? If Edinburgh wishes this municipal match to take place, she must woo the borough and get her consent, and the thing must be done in decency and order. That has not been done, and it is proposed to do this against her wishes. The argument has been used that there are Joint Commissions for various public services, and that these are municipal enterprises over large areas. It is true that they go well into the counties, but may I point out that that is the way these matters work in London where they are worked by separate Commissions, and they are
worked admirably? Edinburgh in these matters is the predominant partner, and she has nothing to lose by that arrangement. In this controversy we have treated one another with the utmost respect and courtesy. Each municipality has expressed the highest opinion of the other's municipal activities; in fact, it has been the politest municipal controversy that was ever conducted. Notwithstanding this, however, one side said, "We do not wish to come into your municipality," but the other side insisted upon it, and I say that that is going against the principle upon which these matters have been conducted in the past. I think that that principle has been temporarily forgotten. At any rate, it has not been given effect to, and the motion which I make is a very moderate and proper one. It is merely that in the light of the finding of Lord Kintore's Committee, which is a very authoritative Committee on matters of this kind, this Bill should be recommitted and considered again, and unless it can be shown, which I submit it has not been in the evidence, that some new and startling doctrine has come to life proving that Edinburgh and Leith will perish if not joined together—unless something of that kind can be shown, then these two parties must remain municipally separate, however close they are geographically, until Edinburgh has succeeded in overcoming the objection, sentimental it may be, of the Leith people to amalgamation. Until that is done we have no right to force amalgamation on them.

Mr. C. PALMER: If I may, as an ordinary Englishman, interfere in a matter which is purely Scottish, I claim to second this proposal to refer back this Bill. We are, I assume, in favour of self-determination. A plebiscite has been taken of the Leith people, and we know they are against this attempt of the municipal maw of Edinburgh to eat up Leith. I am, in municipal as in other matters, with the small man and the under dog, and I think no sufficient case has been made out why, even though Leith may be represented here in a way, it is, and that I understand is the main thing said against it, by the hon. and gallant Member on the Front Opposition Bench (Captain Benn) it has a right to claim that justice shall be done, and we should support them if they desire not to be forced into this unholy marriage with
Edinburgh. I am old enough to remember when the late Mr. Ritchie brought up his great scheme of London local government, the object of which was to create local pride in local affairs, to interest the people of the locality in the government of the locality and in the local matters which concern them. But this is a new attempt at municipal trusts. It lets in a principle of working which, I think, will be found vicious and unsatisfactory. Some of us believe that these little municipalities should be left still to work out their own salvation. Leith having been asked what its wishes are has determined that it desires to remain separate, in spite of grandiloquent and grandiose Edinburgh wishing to absorb the locality. We have a right to ask the protection of Parliament, so that these little burghs may be allowed to carry on their own affairs in their own way. I have received, as no doubt many hon. Members have received, two very remarkable documents, one of them sent by an hon. and gallant Member of this House. As to that I will not inquire too closely into either its ethics or its grammar. The other has been sent by the promoters of this Bill. The latter has convinced me that my hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. and learned Member opposite are right in their opposition to this Bill. Nothing has more convinced me of that than reading the opinion of the promoters of the Bill in the special circular with which I have been honoured. Those who oppose this Bill have been somewhat disingenuous in the quotations they have made from the expression of opinion of the Chairman of the Joint Committee. I think we have a right to assume that the attitude taken up is one we ought to adopt and one which justifies us in voting for the recommital of this Bill. The whole principle at stake in this matter is whether we should absorb these small local authorities and merge them into the greater corporations. If we do that we are going to kill local life and local interest; we are going to start a series of municipal trusts which will be bad for this country, and which affords no opportunity for economy and no opportunity for greater efficiency.

Mr. REMER: As a member of the Committee which dealt with the Birkenhead Corporation case, referred to in the motion for recommital, I think that perhaps a word of explanation might be necessary as to what influenced our mem
bers in coming to the decision they did. We all thought of the expense which attaches to these enquiries. The expense of having eight or nine K.C.'s, as in the case of the Birkenhead Corporation inquiry lasting for seven days, with very large retaining fees payable to counsel. That case was of such a nature that we felt we ought to make a strong recommendation that there should be some instruction which would guide Committees in future in coming to a decision in these cases. We were unanimous in our decision, except perhaps that one member of the Committee wanted to make the recommendation even stronger than it is at present, that no Provisional Order should be made for these extensions except under very exceptional circumstances—and the exceptional circumstances we had in our mind were of a type where it was obviously the case of a small place on the borders of a burgh which it was to the interest of everyone should be incorporated—but, except for very strong reasons of that kind, local opinion should be the guide as to what the Committee should do in regard to granting the Provisional Order. I have spoken to three members of the Committee on the point, and they agree that was what influenced them in making the order.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do I understand that the promoters of this Bill are not going to put up any defence against this Motion to recommit? It seems to be rather a pity we should not have the case for the Bill stated, as it is rather difficult to reply when a Bill is passed sub silentio. What I conceive underlies this Bill is really the great principle whether we ought to allow amalgamation to take place on the ground that the larger units are better and more efficiently administered, or are we, on the other hand, to decide that small units should continue as representing truer democracy than you can get in the larger units.
This case is typical of one that affects us in North Staffordshire on rather similar lines. There, Stoke-on-Trent proposed to absorb Newcastle-under-Lyme, and the Ministry of Health, I think rightly, prevented that absorption from taking place. You can always make out a case for greater efficiency by absorbing these outlying boroughs, but I want the House really to understand that that is not
moving in the direction of true democracy. If these small boroughs remain independent, every individual elector in them has a far larger voice in the way in which he is governed than he can have if he is merely an item in a much larger electorate. Everyone knows that, at the present time, the individual elector has very little voice in the government of the country as a whole; he is only one of some 30,000 electors who elect a Member of Parliament. Therefore, he is divorced, and feels himself to be divorced, from the government of the country. His responsibility is very small, because he is only one of 30,000 who can cast a vote for one of 700 Members of Parliament. If you go to the other extreme, and consider the government of the parish—the parish of, perhaps, 500 inhabitants—there every elector who votes for the parish council has a much greater influence in the government of that parish. He counts, not as one in 30,000, but as one in some 500, or even a smaller number, and, therefore, his influence in the election and upon the government of that parish is infinitely greater than it is upon the government of the country as a whole.
Those are the two extreme cases. In the case of the absorption of a small borough by a larger one, the same principles hold good. In this new corporation of Leith-cum-Edinburgh, the Leith voter will have one-fifth of the influence that he had before on the government of his town. The electorate will be increased five times, and, although that electorate will, no doubt, elect a larger number of town councillors, yet the direct influence of the elector upon the government of the greater Edinburgh would, if he was previously an elector in Leith, be one-fifth of what it was in the past. That raises the question of how far we ought to go in for people governing themselves, and how far we ought to set efficiency as being our aim and object. I, for one, believe that all of us on these Benches here must put democracy first, and not efficiency. If they are opposed to one another, we have, of course, to weigh the degree of sacrifice involved in going in either direction. You cannot go down to complete anarchy, with every man governing himself independently of the rest of the community; nor, on the other hand, does anyone wish
to go to extreme autocracy, with a Czar, all-wise, governing the whole of the community in what he believes to be, and what may, indeed, be, their best interests. You have to strike a happy mean between the two. Every step towards democracy, towards self-government, towards self-determination, is a step in the right direction however strong an opportunist case may be made out for it. We always have to decide whether efficiency or self-government comes first. In this instance I have no doubt whatever, seeing that no case at all has really been made out for efficiency, that we ought to plump in favour of democracy, in favour of self-government, and allow Leith to continue to rule itself, and allow the old Edinburgh to continue to rule itself, rather than merge them in one unit, where no greater efficiency can be expected, but where a loss in democracy must inevitably follow. I beg the House to think twice before it sanctions these great amalgamations under the impression that everything has to give way to some imagined efficiency.
There is another principle involved, and every case, while it must be judged upon its merits, must take into account the degree of interest which each individual has in the government of his own locality. The recent decision of the Joint Committee of the Lords and Commons on all these amalgamations does really mark a milestone in the whole of our local government. It lays down a principle which I believe to be fundamentally sound, namely, that there must be a certain degree of consent before union can take place. Everyone knows the extraordinary local patriotism that there is in these small boroughs; in fact, the smaller the borough the more the local patriotism. Just as we are, probably, more patriotic about our families than we are about the country, so the local borough conceives itself as the hub of the universe, and all the individuals in that small locality believe that their prosperity and their fame is wrapped up in that spot. I know quite well that, when it was proposed to amalgamate Newcastle-under-Lyme with Stoke-on-Trent, the inhabitants of Newcastle-under-Lyme definitely decided that, even if the Act was passed, they would not consent to be absorbed, but would rather refuse to pay rates, and have, in fact, a citizens' strike, than be absorbed in that larger borough. It happens, of
course, that Newcastle-under-Lyme is a much more ancient borough than Stoke-on-Trent. It has returned Members to Parliament since Parliament began, and, therefore, it had a good case for perpetual independence. But that feeling must be just as live in Leith, because, after all, Leith has a history only second to that of Edinburgh, and I should imagine that what the citizens of Newcastle-under-Lyme felt so strongly as to persuade the Ministry of Health to turn down the idea of amalgamation, must be felt just as strongly by the citizens of Leith. Therefore, I welcome the decision of the Joint Committee, not only on general grounds, but because I think that democracy and self-determination are rather apt to be turned down by this House in favour of efficiency, and also because it does lay down the dictum that at any rate some form of consent must precede amalgamation. That decision is a new one. It was come to after this Bill had gone upstairs. If it had been come to before the Bill was sent upstairs, I think that inevitably the decision arrived at would have been very different from what it was. I do maintain that the strongest possible case has been made out for sending this Bill back to another Committee, so that the new principle which has been laid down may at any rate be considered, and it may possibly modify the conclusions of the Committee.
There is another thing that makes one welcome that decision. Everyone knows what the costs are of these amalgamations. It was estimated to me that the amalgamation of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent would have cost the ratepayers of those towns over £50,000. There was the Health Ministry inquiry, with special lawyers and special witnesses, costing an inordinate amount of money. Every single local authority involved, even the smallest urban districts, had to employ their own Counsel and to call their own special witnesses. After that the Bill, if it had not been turned down by the Health Ministry, would have come before the House of Commons. It would immediately have been opposed. It would have gone upstairs to a House of Commons Committee. A large number of the councillors of all these various councils would have spent months in London hotels awaiting that Committee's decision, at the expense of the ratepayers.
Again, special Counsel and special expert witnesses—and we know what they are—would have been called to give evidence. Finally, the Bill would have got through the House of Commons Committee. It would then have gone to the House of Lords, and the whole thing would have been repeated over again. Councillors, town clerks and surveyors living in London at the expense of the ratepayers, Counsel being brought in at enormous fees, and expert witnesses as well. That is what results from these amalgamations when you do not get consent, and it is a very strong argument, if not the strongest, in favour of the decision of the Committee, that if that decision is carried out, at any rate, in future there will be far fewer of these contested amalgamations brought forward, and it will be the duty of the larger unit to persuade the smaller one, not only by concessions in temporary rates, but also by showing what specific advantages are to be got from these amalgamations. It will teach the larger unit to use suasion rather than force—force which inevitably stirs up the smaller community to more concentrated resistance than it would otherwise show. Many of these amalgamations are justified. In that case, let the unit which wants to absorb another show its justification, first, in the country, in the local Press, before they come before the House, before these Counsel are feed, and before enormous expense is gone to. That will not only save the ratepayers a great deal of expense, but it will save this House a great many abuses and futile arguments, such as we are having to-night.

Sir R. ADKINS: I wish to say a word or two on the matter illustrating what seems to me to be, if not an important principle, at any rate a method of almost universal application. Here is a case in which the great City of Edinburgh is seeking to annex and absorb a town of over 80,000 inhabitants, a town which in England would undoubtedly be described as a county borough; and when you come to schemes for amalgamating county boroughs, surely those that always count are the ones that most demand mutual consent. The idea and method of local government with which we are familiar is that a county borough is like a county administration, the highest and most powerful form of local government. In
an administrative county you have something a little analogous to the application of the Federal system. You have districts, you have small boroughs possessing a certain amount of autonomy, but with the county authority having authority in certain matters of common interest. When a borough becomes large enough to be a county borough it is an entirely independent autonomous unit of local government, and when it has got as big as that, and particularly when it has been that for a considerable period, the whole burden of proof is put upon those who seek to extinguish this example of the highest form of local government and absorb it in another one of the same type. There are not the pros and cons that arise when a county borough is trying to take in some area of a different kind. There is much less ground for that than is generally supposed, for the areas outside county boroughs unite personal self-government in many particulars with application of the Federal principle in county government, and the particular case in another place which has been quoted, the decision of the Joint Committee, of course, prevented Birkenhead from annexing an important part of the county of Cheshire. But here the argument is even stronger, because you have side by side two critics which, translated into English surroundings, could be described technically as two great county boroughs, one no doubt larger than the other. When a local community has got to that point that it is big enough to be a county borough, surely the principle is that it should never be annexed by any other place against its will unless there is some special and overriding reason, clear on the face of it and obvious in Parliamentary discussion. Therefore the whole of my sympathy is with those who would like to preserve the historic autonomy of Leith, and I hope the House in all legitimate ways will refuse to facilitate the extension of any one county borough in order to make a neighbouring county borough so large that in practice local government passes into the hands of a bureaucracy.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Member (Mr. Macquisten) has put down a Motion to secure the recommittal of the Bill in view of the opinion expressed in connection with the Birkenhead Extension Provisional Order Bill. Before coming
to that part of our case in defending the Edinburgh Order, I desire to recall one or two important and outstanding events in connection with this promotion. In the first place, we have promoted in this country a very large number of schemes of amalgamation, and most hon. Members will agree that many of those schemes have been promoted in circumstances which were nothing like so compelling and so overwhelming as the circumstances which obtain in this case. This Bill has been the subject of anxious and careful inquiry by a Committee in another place and by a Committee of this House, and that Committee in another place devoted nine days to a review of the whole of the circumstances affecting Edinburgh and Leith, and affecting a very large part of the area surrounding these communities, and a Committee of this House devoted eight days of similar patient and careful inquiry into the Order promoted, and in both cases there was a unanimous decision in favour of the Bill. I want, as a representative of Edinburgh, to pay the highest possible tribute, not only to the hon. Member opposite and his colleagues of this House, but to the Committee of the other House for the extreme care with which they went into every detail connected with this promotion.
I come, in the second place, to the argument which has been adopted by my hon. Friend opposite, which is contained in this Motion and which turns upon the Birkenhead case. The Chairman in the Birkenhead case used these words:
The Joint Committee have given their very careful attention to the facts and issues raised by this proposed Order. They are unanimously of opinion that the promoters have not established the case they sought to make.
That is the first thing we must keep clearly in mind. This is a decision on the merits of the case. The promoters have not established the case they sought to make, and no hon. Member who applies his mind to the facts of the Birkenhead case and the merits of that case, and contrasts the merits with the facts under discussion in connection with this Bill, will fail to agree that there is a wide gulf between the two problems. In the Birkenhead case, according to the view expressed to me by one member of that Committee, there was practically no such thing as community of
interest. In the case now under discussion there is the strongest possible community of interest. Here is one community, 320,000 people in Edinburgh and 80,000 people in Leith; Leith entirely surrounded geographically by Edinburgh, possessing power of extension only into the sea, and nobody proposes to use, or could use such a power; one community for all practical purposes, recognised by the establishment of joint trusts for water, gas, and sewers, these joint trusts operating for the joint or combined area. This is a substantial recognition of community of interest, which is acknowledged by every impartial observer in the two communities. Is there any hon. Member who can suggest that a similar state of affairs obtained in the Birkenhead promotion? That is not pleaded by any hon. Member. There was a wide gulf on the question of rating; a great difference in one area as compared with the other. In the present case the rates in Leith are actually higher than the rates in Edinburgh.
What was the other part of the joint committee's decision in regard to the Birkenhead case? It was this, and it is the beginning and the end of the case now under discussion:
They desire to add an expression of their opinion that subject to special considerations of public advantage no Provisional Order for further extension should be brought before Parliament for confirmation which has not previously received the substantial support of the ratepayers in the areas proposes to be incorporated.
We recognise and we value, particularly in Scotland, local sentiment. We appreciate exactly what was done in building up national sentiment, but the Committee expressly used the words "subject to special considerations of public advantage."
They were bound to make a statement of that kind; otherwise it might be true that we could never achieve amalgamation. We have only to look at the history of municipal amalgamations to see the tremendous advantage which has flowed from them and the very great gain that has accrued to the ratepayers in the areas involved. According to some hon. Members it would appear that we were promoting something new, some quite unheard-of scheme, whereas we are simply taking our place, in compelling circumstances, in the long line of most successful administrative experiments in the
country. If we apply the merits of the Birkenhead resolution to this case the fact stands out that a Committee of this House which considered for eight days the Edinburgh promotion unanimously gave its verdict in favour of the Bill on the ground of public advantage. That was precisely the ground emphasised in the Birkenhead Resolution. "Grounds of public advantage" were unanimously indicated by the Committee of this House which passed the Bill as by a committee in another place as being calculated to minister to the best needs of the locality. We never have regard to any municipal proposal in this country without seeking to ascertain what it is going to do, not only for the area involved, but for the great district roundabout. Economists, public men, experts, impartial people who have applied their minds to this problem have said that this Bill is not only necessary to Edinburgh and to Leith, but absolutely necessary to Scotland, and more particularly to the east of Scotland, and to the success of our export trade. That is an argument widely used and widely held and supported by substantial facts.
We are urged to pursue economy in national affairs, and we want to see that economy, not merely in national affairs, but in municipal administration. This Bill proposes to reduce fifteen separate administrative bodies to three. That is the first substantial gain which flows from the adoption of this measure. Ten separate rating authorities in the district will be reduced to two, and, what is more important still, thirty-three separate rating areas will be reduced to one. On the Second Reading of the Bill, I suggested that it would be almost impossible to recall any scheme of municipal advance or progress which has been, advocated in recent years which showed at once such a striking gain, not merely from the national point of view, but from the point of view of the locality affected. If the measure were delayed, if anything, happened to its passage, it would involve in Edinburgh and Leith the continuation of the joint trust system for water, for gas, for sewers; for water and gas particularly. These joint trusts are representative of the town councils of Edinburgh and Leith, but they are responsible to neither one nor the other. They are not defended by any student of adminis-
trative efficiency. We make no complaint regarding the manner in which they have discharged their duty, but we do say that the continuation of a system of that kind is undesirable in these times of democratic progress, and in view of the great importance of getting direct connection between the representatives and the ratepayers over whose destinies and interests they preside. Some opponents of this measure have suggested that they would be prepared to go to the extent of some greater trust system. That is precisely an argument in favour of amalgamation. Amalgamation in this district has been found so far beneficial that we seek to press it without any predatory desire to its logical conclusion. in the interests of the two communities and for the benefit of the country to which we belong.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I hoped to have the advantage of hearing some remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) before I spoke, but as he shows no disposition to give the House the advantage of his opinion, I must make a prefatory remark to what I should say in more serious vein regarding the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Graham). The hon. Member for East Edinburgh is in this difficulty. When the Bill was originally promoted, seeking to amalgamate one part of the city which he represents, he did not display the same activity in its favour.

Mr. HOGGE: That is not so.

Captain BENN: I did not observe it. He is in the difficulty that the part of the city he represents sought to escape from that Bill, and successfully did so, and he is now free to exercise his energy in supporting the Bill from which his own borough has sought to escape, and has done so successfully. I mention this in order that hon. Members may have the advantage of knowing this when he does speak. It is quite evident that there are two distinct lines of argument which may be taken on this Bill. We may discuss the Bill on its merits, and that is what the hon. Member who has just spoken has done to some extent, or it might be discussed from the very narrow standpoint of the Motion which has been put down by the Member for Springburn (Mr. Mac-
quisten) and which stands on the Order Paper. So far as the hon. Member has dealt with the merits, I will try to follow him. The first point he made was that Leith is entirely surrounded by Edinburgh. It comes to this House now, having step by step obtained the land around Leith, and then that is used as an argument for amalgamation, but I do not think that that should justify the inclusion of Leith, because Edinburgh has not developed the land which it has obtained and which surrounds Leith. It comes here having obtained that land, if I may say so, stealthily, and uses the possession of that land as an argument for another measure. I do not think that is fair. His second argument was that there are joint trusts. That is so. We have joint trusts in London and in other parts of the country, and their basis is the particular work that has to be done. The people who compose them are supposed to be specially expert in that work, but the hon. Member is not entitled to put that point forward as an argument for merging into one all these multifarious authorities as is proposed in this scheme. We must consider the advantages to local administration as well as the getting rid of these numerous bodies.
His third argument had a rather grim humour. He said that there was a community of interests between Edinburgh and Leith, and I have no doubt that there is sympathy on both sides, but it is rather strange that he should plead this community of interests when, at the present moment. Leith is fighting against this proposal of amalgamation. The only other point I will make on the merits is this. There is no question of inefficiency of municipal management. That has not been urged by any witness for the promoters of the Bill. They have not said that there is inefficiency in the arrangements for public health or education. I would urge that there is a real difference of character between the two places. One is the capital of Scotland, the centre of law, literature, science, and learning, and the other is the struggling port of Leith. Surely their character is entirely different. That is shown, I think, by the mottoes of the two places. The motto of Edinburgh is Nisi Dominus frustra. The motto of Leith, which is more suitable to a business community, is "persevere." The fact of the matter is that, on the merits, all the experts are
with Leith. We have with us the Member for Middleton (Sir R. Adkins), one of the most experienced men in the House in these matters. It is not enough to set out to make a symmetrical municipality. To move a wheel here—to put in an official here or another staff there—all that is only part of the machine, but the real driving power must be civic faith. That is the best means of making the machine work efficiently. Now I come to a more germane and proper consideration, and that is the argument that the hon. Gentleman has put forward when he says that this Bill has passed through two Committees, one a Committeee of the other House. But, on the other hand, the same proposal has been turned down on three occasions in the House. I would ask him whether we are to go entirely upon what is done by these Committees or whether it is not always intended that these matters should come up on the floor of the House. If he will study the procedure of the House, the provision of a Report stage, and a Second Reading and Third Reading, he will see that that is so. The reason for that is that it is intended that the House should lay down general principles upon which these things should be done, and that then such proposals should be sent up to the judicial atmosphere which permeates the Private Bill Committee. There is no principle laid down which says that you shall forcibly drive one small community into amalgamation with another against its will. The principle is that these things should be decided on their merits. It is desired that these things should be done properly and in order, and with that object the Government set up a Joint Committee of both Houses. This Committee, it is true, dealt with one Bill and dismissed the preamble, and laid down a general principle which was to be observed in dealing with the Bill. They said no Bill should be brought forward which had not substantial support from the ratepayers in the areas affected and unless it was shown that it would be to the public advantage. In this case that has not been done. It is a very significant thing that the hon. Member does not object to this general principle. He thinks that this principle does not, in the least, invalidate the claims of the promoters. If the principle will not
destroy this Bill, why does he object to the Bill being re-committed?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. Member is asking for a re-committal on a point which was considered by the Committee of both Houses.

Captain W. BENN: The Kintore Committee after this Bill had been disposed of laid down this general principle. If the hon. Gentleman says that the principle was before the Committee, what harm can there be in having the Bill reconsidered in the light of that principle? There is no argument on the ground of expense as no evidence is required and there is no argument on the ground of time. It merely means that before you obliterate an ancient community and before you go in the face of what you may call the unanimous and urgent desire of the citizens of that community, you should at least make perfectly certain that you are not doing so in defiance of the principles laid down. Even on the merits I should not have the least hesitation in asking for the support of hon. Members. I do not believe that the House is desirous of seeing an ancient and honourable tradition of centuries snuffed out. I do not believe the House of Commons desires to see a thrifty and efficient stewardship determined. I do not believe that the House desires to see civic sacrifice and civic patriotism rewarded by municipal extinction. All we ask is that the Bill shall be once more remitted to the Committee in order that they may be perfectly certain before we are extinguished and before the burgh passes from the history of Scotland that it is not being done in flagrant violation of a principle which has been unanimously agreed to.

Sir PARK GOFF: I had the honour of being Chairman of this Committee. I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) for his kind and generous remarks about the Committee, and am glad to know that all parties are agreed that the Committee gave a most exhaustive, fair and impartial hearing. In our House the Committee lasted eight days and in the other House nine days. We were perfectly satisfied that the evidence on behalf of Leith did not in any way either weaken or break down the Edinburgh evidence. We considered that the Leith evidence, if I may most respectfully say so, was to a great degree sentimental
and naturally so, and to a certain degree prejudiced, and naturally so. While Leith had the sympathy of every single member of the Committee, we considered that you could not have a stronger case for administrative amalgamation from whatever point of view we regarded it. The evidence for Edinburgh in this case in our Committee was to our mind overwhelming. Allusion has been made to the Birkenhead case. There was not the slightest analogy between the Birkenhead and Edinburgh cases. They are as different as two poles apart. Allusion has also been made to the dictum of the Lord Chairman.

Mr. REMER: The Chairman did not in any way influence the decision and the proposal did not come from the Chairman at all.

Sir P. GOFF: It would be a rather strange thing if a dictum which came after this Bill was through both Committees were to overrule the unanimous decision of the House of Lords Committee and the House of Commons Committee. Let me go a little further and see exactly what that was. The Whip that went out this morning omitted these words, "They desire to add the expression of their opinion that subject to special consideration of public advantage no provisional order, etc." I entirely agree that we carried it out in our decision on this Bill. We state in our Report:
The Committee have given most careful consideration to this Bill in all aspects. They much appreciate the great care with which the case has been presented on both sides. They are of opinion as a matter of public policy that in the public interests the preamble is proved to subject to two conditions.
That was the decision in our House. I do not wish to detain the House by going through the detailed evidence. We went very carefully through it and we took the greatest pains to give Leith every justice we could. I understand that there is some difference of opinion as regards the Dock Commission. That, I think, can be a matter of adjustment in the future. If I may, with all due respect and humility, let me say that during my four months' experience this year on Parliamentary Committees and Private Bill Committees as a member of Committee and Chairman, and after my fifteen years' experience at the Parliamentary Bar, I am honestly and
conscientiously convinced that if any single Member of this House were to take the trouble to wade through the seventeen days' evidence, or if any four Members were again to become a Committee on a Private Bill, I do not think they could possibly come to any other conclusion that that which the Committees of the two Houses have come to.

Mr. R. McNEILL: My hon. Friend (Sir P. Goff) made the speech one would naturally expect from the Chairman of the Committee, and it was interesting from that point of view. But I think the point on which the House has to decide to-night is one upon which the opinion of the Committee is really not of overwheming value. The opinion of the Committee that examined the Bill would no doubt be of immense value on questions of detail and on any question as to the terms and conditions on which the amalgamation was to take place, and if that were the point the House, I am sure, would be willingly guided by the Committee. But what we are called upon to decide is a perfectly plain matter of principle on which we do not require 17 days of evidence. It is a question to be decided by the House just as a matter of Second or Third Reading, and there would be no use bringing it before the House at all if the House were to feel itself under any obligation to be dictated to by the findings of the Committee and we might just as well abolish all the other stages in the House. Therefore I do not think the House ought to feel itself in any way pressed by the mere fact emphasised by the hon. Gentleman and also by the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) that this decision has been arrived at by a Committee of this House and the other House. I felt some surprise at the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Wedgwood Benn). He rather seemed to me to charge my hon. Friend sitting beside him (Mr. Hogge) with showing less zeal on some former occasion than in this case. In any case my hon. and gallant Friend is himself guilty of a somewhat similar inconsistency.
I have in quite a different connection in this House taken up an attitude very similar to that which my hon. and gallant Friend takes to-night. I have ventured to appear as the opponent of compulsory union of two different parts
of the country, both of which were not anxious for that union, and I am afraid that I must sometimes have incurred very strong disapprobation from my hon. and gallant Friend. Not very long ago in relation to this Bill I, and I dare say many other hon. Members, received a newspaper bearing the Leith postmark. I know nothing about the paper, but I studied it diligently, and I had not gone very far before I found that it was a strong supporter of my hon. and gallant Friend. It was praising him as strongly as any newspaper could praise its Member for the gallant attitude he was taking up on this question, and in a leading article in the paper I was interested to find that Leith was compared with Ulster, and that the action which Ulster for some time has taken on a somewhat similar question was held up as a model for the guidance of the people of Leith. That being so—I have no interest in this matter at all—I want to do a little log rolling with my hon. and gallant Friend. My vote upon this question is up for sale, and if my hon. and gallant Friend will promise me that on the other matter to which I have alluded, which I think he understands, he will give me reciprocity and support on all future occasions in relation to that, I will follow him into the Lobby to-night
But I do not know if I should be acting rightly if I left the matter quite there, and I do not think that I am altogether so venal as I try to make out. I will not exact a bargain. I will vote with my hon. and gallant Friend to-night, and will rely on his gratitude. I am going to give him my vote for the simple reason that whether in the case of Ulster, which the Leith paper held out for guidance, or in the matter of Leith and Edinburgh, I am entirely opposed on principle to compelling one unit, municipal, county, national, whatever you call it, to submit to compulsory union with another against its desire.

Mr. O'CONNOR: Does that include Fermanagh and Tyrone?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not suppose that my hon. and gallant Friend, if he were cross-examined on the figures of particular wards in Leith, would know. I am talking about a clear-cut unit. Leith is one. The six counties in Ulster may be another. However, I do not want to go into that. I am opposed on principle to
compulsory union. Therefore, I am going to support my hon. and gallant Friend because I understand from what I have heard from the other Members, and the overwhelming expression of opinion that has been given by Leith, that they are opposed to this union, and nothing bears that out more remarkably than the small piece of information that fell from the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, when he told us that the rates in Leith are actually higher than in Edinburgh, and the fact that notwithstanding that, although on pooling the rates people in Leith might conceivably look to the advantage of some reduction, they are overwhelmingly against this union, shows the strength of their view.
No one has alluded to a reason which I suspect very strongly has something to do with the desire of Edinburgh in this matter. We have been told that it is very largely a matter of sentiment. I have no doubt that it is. My hon. Friend behind in opening the Debate said that there is no more powerful motive than sentiment, and none to which, I think, we are more bound to give effect. Possibly the sentiment at work here may be a little jealousy between the two chief cities of Scotland. I am not at all sure that there may not be a desire on the part of Edinburgh to show a growth of population and rateable value, and all the rest of it, which will leave Glasgow far behind. That may have had something to do with it, but I do base the action which I am going to take upon the principle which has been laid down by the Kintore Committee. I go further. Some discussion has taken place as to whether the principle laid down by that Committee is one of general application. What I submit to the House is, that it was a sound principle, and though this House is not necessarily bound by it, this House ought to lay it down, whether the Committee laid it down or not, and I do think that in those circumstances the Bill should be re-committed in order that the Committee should give due effect, as manifestly they have not done, to the principle laid down by the Kintore Committee.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley): It is not often that the Chairman of Committees intervenes in a Debate so interesting, but the House is accustomed in connection with Private Bill matters to expect a few
words from the Chairman of Committees, and for that reason I rise. Perhaps it is the more necessary, because I think that in the Debate there has been some little misconception. The hon. and gallant Member opposite put down the Motion to re-commit, and only after some little delay spoke in favour of his Motion. He told us that the motto of his burgh, and no doubt his own "Perseverance," and he put that much higher than the motto of the neighbouring city. He has certainly shown a most remarkable perseverance in this matter, for not only did he give us the speech, which I recollect now, of an hour on the Second Reading of this question, but he has returned to the charge to-night. Nay, more, I understand that he sent you, Mr. Speaker, a telegram requiring your attendance at 8.15 to hear his speech and follow him into the Lobby. I do not know, of course, whether you will obey that command or not, but it does make it desirable that the House, before voting, should be seized of the fact of the matter. I am not rising in the least to challenge the right of the hon. and gallant Member to raise this matter on the Floor of the House. It is undoubtedly not one of those minor matters in which I could advise the House to accept without question the decision of the Committee upstairs. Having had a long Debate upon the subject on another and recent occasion, I think we might, without occupying much more time, be ready to come to a conclusion. The considerations that I wish to put before the House are not, in the main, those that have been placed before us by the hon. Member. Reference has been mad to pronouncement made by the Chairman of a Joint Committee a few days ago, after this Bill had been considered in both Houses by the two Committees of those Houses, and without the least relation to this case. They were dealing with a case distant and different in every respect.
This Bill is not a Provisional Order Bill, and that statement of the Chairman referred to Provisional Order Bills. This is not a Provisional Order Bill, for the very reason that I, as Chairman of Committees, along with the Chairman in the House of Lords, decided that it ought not to be a Provisional Order Bill, but ought to go to Parliament, so that it should
have the double inquiry in the two Houses, it being a question of importance and magnitude, and one that should not be dealt with by the Provisional Order method. Therefore we, in pursuance of our duties according to the Statute, took that deliberate step in order that there might be the double inquiry before the Committees of these two Houses. Those two inquiries have been held, and in each case the conclusion was the same. In one case for nine days, and in the other for eight days, all the authorities were heard, and the evidence was put completely before those Committees. I ask the House to weigh well that fact in comparison with what has been stated from another point of view, that a Committee with a different Bill in front of it made the pronouncement which has been referred to. Even in what was said by the Chairman of that Committee there is nothing to conflict with this decision. It was said that the presumption ought to be against any amalgamation without the consent of the people in the area affected. I agree entirely with that. That is the way that our Bills proceed; every private Bill proceeds on the assumption that until the preamble is proved the Bill goes no further. The promoters are obliged to prove their case, not the opponents. Only then is it possible to proceed with the details of the Bill. That is a thing which the House requires to keep in mind in maintaining a proper balance in its view between the decision of its own Committee upstairs, an ad hoc Committee, and the other inquiry in the other House. I hope the House will give proper weight to that consideration when it comes to a decision upon the matter. The motion to recommit the Bill it is proposed to follow by an instruction to the same Gentlemen who represent us upstairs to review the decision with regard to what was said by that other Committee. I do not know whether anything will be gained by a procedure of that kind.
My view is just this: This is a matter upon which the House ought to vote upon its own view. If Members have a distinct view that the two Committees were wrong, they have a perfect right to register that view in the Division Lobby. Unless they have a conviction as strong as that, I think that, according to our ordinary procedure, they would consider that those who represented them in Committee upstairs, and heard all the evi-
dence, have acted in accordance with the evidence, and not against it. I hope, therefore, that I may ask the House, if not immediately, before very long, to be ready to come to a conclusion.

Mr. HOGGE: I want to refer to one remark of my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain W. Benn), whom I had the pleasure of introducing to Leith at the General Election and who has maintained my recommendation ever since. He raised one point with regard to myself. It was that I was opposed to this Bill so long as the burgh of Musselburgh was included in the desire of the promoters. That is not the case. The one disaster with regard to this Bill has been that Musselburgh is excluded from the Bill. No part of the vicinity of Edinburgh required more to be taken under the efficient administration of an up-to-date municipality than Musselburgh, and Musselburgh, which I represent, along with a large portion of Edinburgh, will regret and now regrets the fact that we were not able to come to terms. I hope Members of the House will resist the kind of invitation to which my hon. Friend (Mr. R. McNeill) refers. He first of all tried to make a bargain with the hon. and gallant Member for Leith, and then receded on a point of gratitude. A certain amount of that kind of debate is all very well, but I beg hon. Members to remember what are the real issues at stake in this large question. This point that has been raised to-night has been raised after the main discussions and after the main expense has been entailed. This an afterthought. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith is entitled to do so, and I give him full credit for having put the case of his municipality in the best possible light before this Committee, but I have this considerable advantage over my hon. and gallant Friend, that I was born in Edinburgh, I have lived in Edinburgh all my days, and I know the local circumstances, I think, presumably better than my hon. and gallant Friend will do, even although he remains the representative of Leith for the rest of his natural life.

Major-General Sir NEWTON MOORE: It all depends on this Bill.

Mr. HOGGE: In that case, as the most junior member for Edinburgh, he will begin to associate himself with the senti-
ments of a larger municipal area. Members who know Edinburgh and its geographical circumstances must know that Leith is bound on all sides entirely by Edinburgh. My hon. and gallant Friend complained that Edinburgh had done that as a policy of deliberation, that they had from time to time bought up and secured land in the vicinity of Leith, but if my hon. and gallant Friend knew the truth of the matter, he would know that the land was acquired for municipal purposes of the highest consideration. I remember one instance in which Edinburgh, in order to relieve the city of the noxious fumes of the manufacture of gas, went so far as to build great gasometers on the shore of the sea at Granton. It meant a considerable amount of enterprise and of money, but it was the kind of thing that we want to see in our great municipalities, and if Leith is the enterprising burgh that we are asked to believe it is, in all conscience why, during all these years, did not Leith seek to extend its boundaries? Leith to-day could not even give itself a public bath, and the conditions of housing in Leith are such, and the area of ground on which you can build houses is such, that the problem of health in Leith will become one of the most serious considerations in the near future. I do not want to put it on those local grounds; I want to put it that in many respects we ought to view a question of this kind from a larger aspect. Edinburgh, as my hon. and gallant Friend has said, has been described as an academic city. It is quite true that Edinburgh is the city of the Law Courts, and contains the King's Palace, the old Castle, and the University, and it has a peculiar life contrasting, say, with a commercial city like Glasgow. That is true, but anybody who believes in the development of municipal life does not want to isolate that kind of thing in any part of Scotland. It is further true that the commercial enterprise of Leith depends altogether upon Edinburgh. The great commercial houses that exist in Leith are run by Edinburgh people.

Mr. C. PALMER: Leith wants to be left alone.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: It does—by the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. C. Palmer). I am talking from my long experience. I know, and there are other
Members of this House who know, individually the men who run the great enterprises of Leith. They live in Edinburgh. I hear an hon. Member say that Leith is not so nice. That is because it is concentrated round a few docks. We want to make it nice. We want to make accessible to the people of Leith areas for better housing. We want to give open spaces to Leith. We want to co-operate with Leith and incorporate the kind of life you have in Edinburgh, with all its academic attractions, and the kind of opportunity you have in Leith for the advancement of commerce. There has been a development in the Firth of Forth as a result of the Great War. You have built on the other side of the Firth of Forth the great naval base of Rosyth. Amalgamation will help the development of commerce on the Forth. It means a vast commercial development for the east of Scotland, and it is wanted badly in Scotland. The concentration of commercial life in the west of Scotland is not good for Scotland. You have concentrated, as the result of that, 1¾ millions of people, or nearly half the entire population of Scotland, round Glasgow. The result is that in Glasgow you have the worst housing conditions of almost any city in the United Kingdom—over half a million people living in one-room tenements. That is because all the commercial enterprise has gone that way. There is not the antagonism between Leith and Edinburgh which my hon. and gallant Friend tries to make out. He tries to talk of the flame of revolt. It is an exaggerated statement. It is perfectly ridiculous. My hon. and gallant Friend, of course, is entitled to put that type of view, but I put against that the experience of men who have spent their lives in that locality and agree with me—and I beg the House will agree—that the amalgamation of those types of interests—the intellectual activity of Edinburgh, with its associations, and the commercial potentiality of Leith—worked in a proper way, means an enormous development to Scotland. It will be doing an injustice, not only to Leith and to Edinburgh, but to the whole of Scotland, if the Committee agree to the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith.

Major-General SEELY: I would not venture to intervene between my two
hon. Friends who represent Leith and Edinburgh, even to abate the civil war, but for the fact that I was Chairman for many years of Private Bill Committee, and it fell to my lot to decide on what is now a test case with regard to what is extension, and, therefore, I would reply to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means rather than to them. That is a very interesting case, and I venture to appeal to the House to give it special consideration. The function, as I understand it, of a Private Bill Committee, of which, as I say, I have had some knowledge, is to examine all the necessary details as to the best arrangement with regard to gas, water and other arrangements of that kind for the administration of an area; but it is not their function, as I conceive it, to decide upon a historic question as to whether one or the other should be absorbed. My right hon. Friend the Chairman of Ways and Means appealed, as he has often appealed before, and once, I remember, on my behalf, to support the views of the Committee. With respect, I would say this is a case where the Committee was not examining the thing which the House is now required to decide. It is beside the point to say it may be convenient for the purposes of the rates to combine Leith and Edinburgh, but the point before the House is whether it is right that the historic entity of Leith should be absorbed in the historic entity of Edinburgh. Lord Kintore's Committee laid down the principle of self-determination. If the principle of self-determination is ever to be respected, it has to be respected here. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith tells me—and has shown me the figures—that by majorities of five to one on two successive occasions the inhabitants of Leith have decided on the principle of self-determination for themselves, and, in view of that fact, and as an old Chairman of Private Bill Committees, I would respectfully appeal to the House to make an exception in this case, and just for once disregard the findings of Committees of both Houses, and say that, on the broad principle of self-determination, they will support Leith in her desire to retain her historic identity.

Mr. J. TAYLOR: I would not have taken up the time of the Committee unless to help to put before the Com-
mittee, so far as I can, the opinion of Scottish Members. I may say that if I had any bias at all when I entered the Committee, it was on behalf of the smaller burgh, for I had been a representative in a small municipality in Scotland for a quarter of a century. When I took my seat in Committee I determined to give my verdict on the evidence placed before me. I have no hesitation in saying that with that evidence before it that Committee, in the public interest, could have come to no other decision than that to which they came. Reference has been made by different speakers to the opposition of the people of Leith. They have said it was not placed before the Committee. That is not so. We had witnesses who put the plebiscite returns before the Committee and spoke of the feeling of Leith. There is no doubt whatever that the language of the hon. Member for Leith is none too strong when he said that some of the language used at the meetings against amalgamation was, to say the least, fiery.
While that was so, the evidence on behalf of Edinburgh was clear that in the public interest the amalgamation should take place, and that not only in regard to the present, but also the future. We have had this system of trusts built up dealing with the public services, such as water, gas, and sewage. I make bold to say that if the Edinburgh Bill that was promoted a long time ago had been passed that this situation would not have arisen, and the water would have been controlled by the Edinburgh Corporation and not by a joint trust. I have had some experience of trusts and of Joint Hospital Boards. I know the difficulties. Some people say still there is no difficulty at all because the Members are drawn from the different municipalities. But you have only a small number of members on these trusts, and their minutes do not go before the parent corporation for confirmation. They may initiate legislation and vast schemes, and they are not called to account as trusts. That is not good for local government. We had a remedy suggested by the hon. Member for Leith. "Why," he asked, "if there was a difficulty in regard to the trust was there not an amalgamated trust?" That would make things far worse. Trusts are for dealing with a specific subject. The water trust with water, the gas with gas, and others with sewage. But one thing that
influenced the Committee was this—the public health. Leith is a seaport town. The ships come in from different countries, and bring in diseases. Unless the Public Health Administration is under one authority then you cannot deal with the thing as effectively as you would like. That was one consideration. Another was, if you want a large development in public health separate systems would be a heavy burden of expense upon the ratepayers. In all public health services, a large portion of the expense is borne by the Treasury, and the consequence would be that the Treasury would have to pay to two local authorities. We are sweeping away in this Bill 15 local authorities and education, the Poor Law, and other municipal work would be under two large authorities. I am confident that in the public interest and the interests of the public purse of Edinburgh, Leith and Midlothian, there is no question whatever that this Bill will effect a very large saving.

Sir N. MOORE: I have had the opportunity of listening for two hours to this Debate, and it appears to me that some hon. Members have come in at the last moment to call "Divide." I was anxious to ascertain the views of various representatives in order that I could give a reasoned vote. As far as I can gather, although I was not on the Committee, one of the principal reasons advanced by the Member for East Edinburgh was that they were anxious to co-operate with Leith. It seems to me something like the co-operation which existed between the lion and the lamb, that is the lion would swallow the lamb. The principle adopted here is that a referendum should be taken before any outside municipality should be embodied with another. That principle has long been in existence in Australia, and I hope the result of this Debate will be that the local government authorities will arrange that a referendum may be taken so that smaller constituencies may have the opportunity of deciding such matters as these. I disagree with the hon. Member for East Edinburgh who said that there was a wide gulf between the Birkenhead and the Leith case. I think those who have had the opportunity of listening to this Debate will say that on this occasion the honours are with those who desire to recommit the Bill.

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: In this House I have often sat here listening to
Scottish Members laying down the law with regard to Ireland. I think I know as much about Scotland as they know about Ireland. My knowledge of Scotland is not very great, but I think it is as great as the knowledge displayed by some hon. Members about Ireland. I have the greatest sympathy with the struggle now being made by Leith, because I represent a small community in the county Dublin. I represent the district of Rathmines which has a very fine waterworks of its own, and my district has been exceedingly forward in the provision of housing for the people. I remember a story told about a traveller approaching Edinburgh in the train, and he fell asleep. Someone thought they would try a practical joke upon him, and they rubbed lamp black all round his nose, and when the traveller woke up he exclaimed:
Edinbroo, I smell thee noo. I'm near home.
Allusion has been made here to sending telegrams. I remember—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the occasion for anecdotes. The hon. Member will perhaps confine himself to the question before the House.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: I have great respect for Chairmen of Committees, but it is not certain that their fiat is always infallible. I understand that in the case of a Committee presided over by the hon. Baronet, who represents Cleveland, a decision in reference to the Port and Docks Board was given that Kingstown was to be treated as part of the Docks Board, but afterwards Kingstown was restored to her former place by the House of Lords. The point here is whether Leith is to be regarded as a separate entity, and, personally, I shall, in sympathy with the efforts of that gallant little place to maintain its own position, go into the Division Lobby in its favour.

Question put, "That the words 'now considered' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 77; Noes, 107.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[10.20 p.m.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Grant, James A.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Greig, Colonel James William
Rose, Frank H.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Grundy, T. W.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Beckett, Hon. Gervase
Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Seddon, J. A.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Smith, Harold (Warrington)


Brassey, Major H. L. C.
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Bruton, Sir James
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Swan, J. E.


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Johnstone, Joseph
Talbot, Rt. Hon. Lord E. (Chich'st'r)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Taylor, J.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Casey, T. W.
Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.
Tryon, Major George Clement


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.
Macleod, J. Mackintosh
Whitley, Rt. Hon. John Henry


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Mitchell, William Lane
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Myers, Thomas
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Neal, Arthur



Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Mr. Hogge and Sir Park Goff.


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
O'Grady, Captain James



NOES.


Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.
Brittain, Sir Harry
Fell, Sir Arthur


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cape, Thomas
Fildes, Henry


Armitage, Robert
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Forrest, Walter


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Coats, Sir Stuart
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnston, Major Harry
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Galbraith, Samuel


Beauchamp, Sir Edward
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.


Benn, Captain Wedgewood (Leith)
Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole
Gould, James C.


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)


Blair, Reginald
Cowan, Sir H. (Aberdeen and Kinc.)
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Blake, Sir Francis Douglas
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Dawes, James Arthur
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Dockrell, Sir Maurice
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Briant, Frank
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.
Hancock, John George


Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Stewart, Gershom


Hartshorn, Vernon
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Sugden, W. H.


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hinds, John
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Johnson, Sir Stanley
Perkins, Walter Frank
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Prescott, Major W. H.
Waterson, A. E.


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wedgwood, Colonel J. C.


Kiley, James D.
Raper, A. Baldwin
white, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


King, Commander Henry Douglas
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Whitla, Sir William


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Remer, J. R.
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Renwick, George
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Lort-Williams, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Winterton, Major Earl


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Macquisten, F. A.
Seely, Major-General Rt. Hon. John
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)



Mills, John Edmund
Spencer, George A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville
Mr. C. Palmer and Mr. Betterton.


Morgan, Major D. Watts
Stevens, Marshall



Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Proposed word there added.

Bill accordingly re-committed.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the re-committed Bill to have regard to the findings of the Joint Committee of both Houses on the Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Birkenhead Extension) Bill [Lords]."—[Captain Wedgwood Benn.]

SUPPLY.

Again considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question proposed on consideration of Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £17,572,797, be, granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessarry to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., sundry Contributions and Grants in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Insurance (Health) Acts, 1911 to 1919, certain Grants in Aid, and certain Special Services arising out of the War.

Question again proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £17,572,697, be granted for the said Service."

Mr. MYERS: Most hon. Members who had the opportunity and privilege of listening to the statement of the Minister of Health this afternoon recognise the
tremendous responsibility of his office and the great volume of work that has been attempted. Not only was the statement important from the point of view of the work that had been done, but of the new features of public health administration which are proposed to be initiated. Every hon. Member who has made himself familiar with the Report of the Medical Officer of the Board of Education with regard to the physical defects of our school children will be satisfied that a further and very extensive development of public health administration is necessary. On the other hand we have the Reports of the Medical Boards who investigated the physical condition of the men who offered themselves for service for the Army, and the results of those investigations were lamentable. We should like to see more substantial progress made in housing schemes. We on this side are of opinion that many things have been neglected that might have been attempted. We do not accept all that has been said as to the lack of workers. We have said many times that the Government should have taken hold of the building materials available and rationed them in the interests of the community in those areas where they were required.
The general body of opinion on this side is not quite in sympathy with the financial processes that have been carried out. I would not like to say a single word to prevent anyone subscribing to Housing Bonds, but if the War had continued for another six months or a year the Prime Minister suggested the other day that the money would have been found. It is just as necessary, indeed, more necessary, that money should be found by the State for the erection of houses for the
people as to find money if the War had been continued for 12 months longer. Criticism has been hard this afternoon in respect of the use of skilled labour in various directions. We say that it can be proved beyond question that buildings other than houses have been permitted to be erected to a far greater extent than ought to have been allowed in this crisis. I presented to the Minister of Health recently a set of figures prepared by a surveyor of a provincial town. In one month the town council passed plans for buildings other than houses equal to one housing scheme of 114 houses, and the same council in the following month passed plans for buildings other than houses to an equal extent. That ought not to be permitted. Travelling about the country, we can see evidences of substantial building—anything but houses—and labour and material. Drastic steps ought to be taken in those directions. Something has been said with regard to pensions. As a member of an Old Age Pensions Committee, I urge that one thing that ought to be necessary, and that only, ought to be the production of the birth certificate of any person who is entitled to pension. It would do away with a lot of irritation and make for economy. Even if a few people over 70 with an income which did not justify them in doing so did claim the pension, I am satisfied that the economies effected would more than counterbalance the amount of such claims.
I want to deal with some of the greater questions of public health administration, and, first, to make reference to the maternity and infant welfare service. I know from my own personal knowledge and experience the tremendous work that has been done in this direction, but there is room for a great deal more. I find, according to the Report of the Ministry of Health, that it is estimated that something like 2,000 professional health visitors are required in the country, and that on 1st July, 1918, there were only 762 full-time officers in the employ of the local authorities. There are quite a number of others who combine the position with that of visitor to tuberculosis cases and that of sanitary inspector, a totally undesirable proceeding, but if we include every person who does any health visiting at all, either whole or part-time, there is still some 700 short of the 2,000
required in the country. I would ask the Ministry of Health to call upon the local authorities to make up the deficiency. Let every health visitor be a fully qualified midwife and trained nurse, able to speak with some authority on questions of public health and from their association with prospective mothers, and I am satisfied that the great work that has been done in the past will be improved and extended in the future. I am asked by one of my colleagues to make reference to one particular point. Under the Regulations for maternity and infant welfare, if a health visitor or a midwife visits a case and, in her judgment, it becomes a difficult case, she is entitled to call in a doctor. The general practice is that, when a doctor is called in by the official of the local authority, he sends in his bill to the local authority, and in those cases which have come under my experience the local authority has readily paid, but I am told that in some parts of the country, not only do the local authorities refuse to pay, but they call upon the person who has had the service to pay, and they have actually gone to the length of appointing an official to go round and collect weekly payments from these people until the responsibility has been discharged. If that be so, I hope that the regulations will be insisted upon, and that this system will be discouraged. If we are going to preserve infant life we want an efficient midwifery service in the country. According to the report of the Ministry of Health, in 1909 50 per cent. of confinements were attended by midwives and in 1916 70 per cent. While the number of confinements attended by midwives has been increasing, the number of midwives available has been decreasing. Since it has been insisted that midwives should have the certificate of the Central Midwives Board and that those who do not hold that certificate should not practise, the number of midwives available has decreased considerably.
If there is one need in the public health side to-day, it is to develop practice in this direction, even if local authorities have to be subsidised. I am quite familiar with what has been done, and I wish the work well and hope that it will be extended to the fullest possible point until we are satisfied that the supply of midwives in the country is up to the demand. In infantile mortality
by far the greater proportion of infants die in the first week of life, and in many instances that is due to inefficient midwifery service. Another calamity is the loss of a mother of child-bearing age. It is a great domestic tragedy and a serious loss to the State, and often results from inefficient midwifery service. The housing problem creeps into all these questions. There is the fact that a third of the population of Great Britain live in houses of three rooms or under, which means one living and one sleeping room, and confinements under such conditions are a very serious matter. It is very desirable to have maternity homes extended. The necessity of our time is not so much to look after the children in later years as to give the child a decent start and let it have an opportunity of being well born. There are two sides to the question of tuberculosis. The child contracts it through food and the adult from another person, and we have, therefore, to tackle the question of food and infection. The first essential is pure milk, and we are told a Bill for that purpose is shortly to be introduced, and it never was more necessary. For two years on a local authority I advocated veterinary inspection of milch cows. It was strongly contested on the grounds of economy, and ultimately it was decided upon, and the corporation will not go back on that decision. Every animal in the borough is examined twice and sometimes oftener in the year, and the result is that the standard of cattle in our neighbourhood is of the highest possible type. Quite a number of places in the country have adopted the same principle, and I would suggest that it should be made compulsory on local authorities to do so. A distinguished medical Member of this House, who is an authority on this question, informs me that three per cent. of the milk-yielding animals of this country throw off tuberculous milk, and if the milk of one tuberculous animal is mixed with the milk of 25 other animals it will contaminate the whole supply. Here we have children suffering from tuberculosis and milkmen going round selling tuberculosis at from 8d. to 10d. a quart. Every tenth sample taken by local authorities for testing purposes has tuberculosis in its composition. A few years ago when we wanted cream the milk had to be left standing overnight and the cream was drawn off and the
milk that was left was sold as old milk and given to animals. To-day, with the introduction of mechanical separators, within a quarter of an hour of the milk coming from the animal the cream is all taken away and the milk is sold as new milk, with not an ounce of fat in it and very slightly removed from water in its nutritive properties. These facts are all evidence that a very drastic milk Bill is required to be introduced in this House. The question of infection with tuberculosis is bound up with that of housing. The other day I suggested that one of our great defects in the treatment of tuberculosis was the lack of early diagnosis, and that medical men failed completely to diagnose it sufficiently early. The London County Council has received a report on tuberculosis and a resumé of that report appeared in the "Times" of yesterday. In one of the metropolitan boroughs there were 205 deaths from tuberculosis in a given period. Sixty-four of those cases were notified when death took place and 39 were notified within a month—which shows the want of early diagnosis. Institutional treatment has not had a chance. We were getting along nicely with it up to the outbreak of the War, and in addition to the civilian population, it had put upon it from 30,000 to 50,000 soldiers suffering from the same disease. The result has been that neither civilians nor discharged soldiers have had an opportunity of remaining in these institutions the length of time they should have done to give them any possible chance of improvement. On these grounds we ought not to condemn institutional treatment.
I want to see dental clinics increased. Medical testimony is unanimous to the effect that tremendous advantages can be secured by the extension of these institutions. There is room for the extension of these institutions. We also require greater facilities for minor operations. Such operations on school children, for adenoids and the like, are arranged with difficulty. Parents cannot afford to pay, and the voluntary hospitals, which are overcrowded, do not care always to take them in. This problem of the hospitals calls for attention. We are told that one-half of the hospital beds in the country are in Poor Law institutions. Obviously there are only two alternatives for those who
desire treatment. They have either to go into the Poor Law institution and accept Poor Law relief or go to a voluntary hospital and accept charity. Meanwhile, the hospitals are appealing for funds in order to keep going. I want to see the hospitals now under the Poor Law authorities brought under the range of the public authorities, and after that the voluntary hospitals will "come to" and the co-ordination of all these agencies for the benefit of the community will result. The problem of finance is very serious. Local rates have gone up from £70,000,000 to £100,000,000. There are economists in local authorities as well as here. They will economise on anything except their dinners. They will not support a public health service unless the State backs them up in the demands they make. What we have to attend to is the claim that our greatest national asset, the health and physical efficiency of our people, is restored and sustained at the highest possible level.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: In the few minutes left, I would be glad to back up the congratulations to the Minister of Health for the extraordinarily satisfactory statement he has given us as to the way in which his Department, in the first year after its creation, has tackled the innumerable problems it has had to face. We have heard with very great sympathy the remarks of the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers), who shows a great acquaintance with these subjects, and we are glad to feel that in political life there is no distinction between parties in the sincere desire to do what is best for the community in the prevention, as well as the cure of disease. I would like to focus my attention on one point—the organisation of the public health service in London. As long ago as September, 1917, a very notable report was produced by a Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Peebles, which inquired into the future of the poor law service of the country. The Committee reported on 19th December, 1917. Acting on that, the London County Council appointed in 1918 a committee to inquire into the way in which it should be applied to London. The difficulty with the co-ordination of these services is more acute in London than in any
other part of the world. Therefore, I think it should be recognised that the London County Council have done a great service to the State in taking up this matter and bringing the thing to a head in a concrete report, which was presented to the right hon. Gentleman by a deputation which he received in April of this year. In this report it was shown that by the Ministry of Health Act of 1919 one of the duties laid upon the Ministry was to provide means for effecting a rearrangement of health functions of the Government Departments:
It shall be the duty of the Minister to take all such steps as may be desirable to secure the preparation, effective carrying out, and co-ordination of measures conducive to the health of the people.
This Poor Law service is of the utmost value, because people do not recognise that it is the earliest attempt for the provision of a preventive as well as a curative service for the whole country. It is about 80 years old, and the time has gone by now when it can any longer be taken as the basis, because successive Governments, having no policy whatever on this subject, have introduced one Act after another improvising administrations, and authorities, and officials of one kind or another, regardless of the original basis for which the Poor Law was laid down. It was shown that, as regards different health services, they are divided up as follows: First of all, in general terms, there are the environmental and other Public Health services of a local character. Environmental services deal with what is commonly known as sanitation, and these are matters more particularly affecting the locality, and which should be charged to the locality and carried out by a locality. The second service is in respect of infectious diseases. These are, to a large extent, local, more public than individual, but individual as well. The Poor Law medical services combine both prevention and cure, and as far as they are individual they are more essentially individual only on those who can afford to pay. The school medical services are again introduced as part of our educational system, which cares now for the body as well as for the mind, and therefore they are rightly a definite charge on the public authority. Then there are the Health Insurance Acts, which are definitely intended to be a self-supporting service
of cure and incidentally of prevention. Finally, you have maternity and child welfare Acts, which introduce other services more especially in the interests of the community; and last of all you come to the voluntary health agencies, of a very large number, which do most important work—not only the voluntary hospitals, which are the most important, but also the Red Cross Societies, the Order of St. John, the nursing associations, of growing importance, and the different councils for special diseases. The overlapping is shown to be enormous, overlapping of finance and of responsibility for the health services, duplication of inspection, divergence of policy between the different bodies carrying these things out, competition for accommodation in the different institutions under the different authorities; and it is shown that these must be tackled.
The financial policy brought forward by the county council is as follows:—In the first place, that the functions of the London Poor Law authorities should be divided between the county council on the one hand, and the City Corporation and the Metropolitan boroughs on the other; that the administration in London of such additional health services as may be required in future shall be divided between these councils by a definite scheme; that the county council shall be definitely the central organising authority for organising schemes and for surveying health services from time to time; that they shall produce a definite scheme after consultation with these other bodies who are working the health services, the county council to have power to appoint a health committee with power to co-opt those to help it; that the cost of the public health services, in so far as they are environmental or local, shall be borne by local funds; that the cost of the prevention and spread of infectious diseases should be borne up to one-half by national funds, and the rest by local funds, but private fees may be charged to those who can afford to pay. As regards the medical treatment of school children, the charge should be continued to be met by the authorities responsible for the provision of such treatment. As regards medical treatment provided by public authorities, individuals should be obliged to pay to the extent of their ability to pay. Lastly, a central council—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Deputy-Chairman (Sir E. Cornwall) left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

WAR PENSIONS BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Devolution of administrative powers.)

Within a period of nine months after the passing of this Act, the undermentioned branches of administration shall be devolved upon the headquarters of the pensions regions established by the Minister:—

Registration of artificial limbs;

Pensions issue office;

The powers and duties of the special grants committee in so far as paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section three of the principal Act, as modified by the Naval and Military War Pensions (Transfer of Powers) Act of 1917, are concerned, and which shall be construed accordingly.

Provided that no officers or civil servants, transferred or distributed as a result of this section, shall be in any worse position as respects their tenure of office and salary than they would have been apart from the provisions of this Section.—[Mr. W. Graham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause concerns a subject which was not discussed at all in Committee upstairs, because there was more or less general agreement that we should postpone this particular issue until the Report stage. This Clause, which is supported in various parts of the House, provides that within a period of nine months after the passing of this Act, the registration of artificial limbs, the Pensions Issue Office, and the powers and duties of the Special Grants Committee shall be decentralised. I propose purposely to leave out of debate the Special Grants Committee, because I understand the hon. and gallant Member for Tradeston (Major Henderson) will follow me and will speak with greater
knowledge and detail on that point than I can, but I venture to press very strongly the decentralisation of the registration of artificial limbs, mainly on the ground that the existing system of centralisation leads to delay, and perhaps penalises people who require care and attention, and what we commonly call the higher grade forms of disability. I think I shall carry with me all hon. Members in the desire to place within the reach of disabled men at the earliest possible moment the best appliances which we can obtain for them, and certainly the very latest and best artificial limbs. I am informed by disabled men that the present method involves a delay, and they ascribe that delay, rightly or wrongly, to the centralisation of the registration of artificial limbs. I have no desire to minimise the difficulties of the Ministry of Pensions in this matter. All of us who have had experience either on the Joint Disablement Committees or on the Regional Advisory Councils know the very great difficulties attached to this work but even admitting the difficulty of the standardisation of these limbs, I fail to understand why we should not be able to decentralise the registration and to put the men much more rapidly into touch with the authorities specially ministering to their needs in what is a very important item. The other parts of my motion, from some points of view, are far more important. We propose to decentralise the pension issue office, and we suggest in this new clause that that process of paying pensions should be undertaken in the various 12 or 13 regions which have been established—that that should be added to the other work of assessment or determination of the pension which is now carried out in the different regions throughout the country. May I explain the terrible weakness of the present position?
Very soon, I think, after the present Parliament was elected, a Decentralisation Committee was appointed which was representative of the authorities dealing with pension matters, and of the different political points of view of the House. We expressly recommended a scheme of decentralisation which led to the establishment of the regional councils. We pushed our recommendations beyond that on general lines supporting decentralisation
as a principle in war pensions which should be adopted to the fullest possible extent. What has happened under that recommendation? We have handed over to the dozen or so Regional Councils the assessment and determination of the pensions in those regions: of seeing the men and examining into their circumstances, and of fixing the amount of the pension which is the appropriate amount, having regard to the Royal Warrants in force. That, I am not exaggerating, has been of the greatest benefit to the administration of the pensions, and certainly to the happiness and comfort of the unfortunately large number of people covered by this Bill and previous warrants. What happens? No sooner have we determined the pensions in the regions than the recommendation is sent, not to some department next door for the more or less automatic payment of the pension, but to the centralised Pension Issue Office in London which occupies a large number of public buildings—I am not complaining of that at the moment—and has necessarily a very large staff, but which involves 5 or 6 weeks' delay in the payment of the pension decided upon. That is quite an unbusiness-like proposal.
We seek in this new Clause to carry the recommendations of the Decentralisation Committee to their logical conclusion. We say that unless you pay the pensions more or less on the spot and in the regions, you are going to throw away a very large part of the value of the work which was done by that Committee, and you are not going to obtain that prompt payment of the pension which should be undertaken once the amount is assessed or determined by the local Committee and the Regional Advisory Council. There is no reason in the world why this excessive centralisation should be maintained. On a previous occasion I used words that indicated that the mere payment of the pension was more or less an automatic process. My right hon. Friend demurred, and said that a far greater difficulty was involved than perhaps I, in common with other Members, appreciated. I am willing to modify that statement to-night, and to say there are difficulties, but we have specifically provided in our new Clause for a period of nine months—and we are not tied to that period—during which the change can be gradually made. That a change should be made ultimately hardly
anyone will dispute. We all feel that if you determine the pension on the spot there is no adequate reason why it should not also be paid there, thus avoiding the delay of the present system. If I may anticipate the reply of the right hon. Gentleman I have no doubt he will say that the payment of the pension involves the recognition of changes in the amount and variations from time to time and he will no doubt suggest that this work should be centralised in some department in London. I cannot possibly agree with that view. Changes or variations in the kind of pension appear to be one of the very reasons why we should have this business decentralised and removed to that spot where the people are familiar with the facts. In this way you would avoid delays and at the same time cut out a great deal of unnecessary administrative effort.
I wish to push my last point. Under the existing system where a pension is not forthcoming for five or six weeks the local war pensions committees are requested to make temporary advances. If the pension were paid promptly a great deal of administrative machinery would be rendered unnecessary or would be free to devote its attention to more urgent work. All that machinery and effort is rendered necessary now in the localities by this fatal error of centralisation. I think I have made out a case not merely for the application of the decentralisation report but for the success of the administration of war pensions. I hope my right hon. Friend will adopt this Clause and put into operation a scheme which is recommended practically by the unaminous voice of all those connected with the administration of war pensions in this country.

Major HENDERSON: I beg to second the motion.
I think the House will realise that this is a subject of vital importance to the whole administration of war pensions in this country. I do not wish to say anything in regard to the question of artificial limbs, and I only desire to make one reference to the question of the pensions issue office. That is a point which has not been mentioned by the last speaker. It is a question of treatment under the present regulations. The greatest difficulty arises when a man who
is drawing a pension undergoes treatment. When a man is put under treatment under these conditions his paper is withdrawn and the Pension Office is notified in London that he is receiving treatment from his local committee and his pension is stopped. This goes on until he is fit and then a form is sent up to the Pension Issue Office and the man's pension is resumed. It is obvious that when a local committee set up in Scotland has to notify London a considerable time must elapse before anything can be done, and there is always an interval between the treatment allowance ceasing and the pension recommencing. It would be much simpler if the committee in Scotland had only to notify Edinburgh, the regional headquarters, which is nearer than London. In regard to the question of the Special Grants Committee, I would like to say that that Committee was set up some years ago at the very beginning of the establishment of war pensions committees, with two objects. One of those objects was alimentary and the other judicial. No one who has any experience of pensions administration desires that the judicial functions of a committee of that kind, which have always been carried out quite satisfactorily, should be devolved on local committees, because the result would not be of value so far as these judicial functions are concerned because they are better administered from a central point of view, where the central body is entirely out of touch with local influences. On the other hand its alimentary duties are essentially local, and it is entirely wrong that they should be administered centrally. The object of these powers is to enable the committee to issue approved extra grants in certain cases where they are justified by regulations which exist for that purpose. It is impossible for the committee to find out whether the regulations are fulfilled in certain cases unless they make inquiries locally. They have to make such inquiries in all parts of the country. Yet the work for some unknown reason is retained in London. Although we do not advise that the judicial functions should be transferred to local regional headquarters we think it is essential in the interest of administration and economy that the alimentary functions should be transferred to regional headquarters.
I can quite understand there is a certain amount of opposition to this proposal from what I may describe as vested interests in London. If it is carried out these interests will not be so great as at present. They will to a certain extent be whittled down and, human nature being what it is, when people have built up a certain position they naturally do not look upon any proposal to deprive them of it, or to whittle it down, with a particularly sympathetic eye. On the other hand we have a provision in this Amendment to make sure that anybody who is transferred under this proposal should suffer in no way as far as salary is concerned. I appeal to the House to remember that War Pensions administration exists for one purpose only, and that is to administer to the needs of dependents and of the soldiers and sailors themselves, and it cannot justify its existence unless it administers to those needs efficiently and adequately, and if this proposal will improve our administration and tend to make it more adequate and more efficient then it should be accepted by the Minister. I am prepared to admit first that the regional headquarters have no statutory existence. They were set up by the late Minister of Pensions entirely on his own responsibility and without any Parliamentary sanction except perhaps that they were referred to in the Estimates. They have never been referred to in an Act of Parliament, and that fact may from a technical point of view prove a stumbling block. I also realise that the regions were not all established at the same time, and where in some cases the Minister may be quite willing to extend these powers to them in other cases where they are not so efficient he may not be. But it would help a great deal if he will give us an undertaking that if he cannot for some legal reason put this Amendment into the Bill he will agree to carry out some form of devolution so far as these particular administrative functions are concerned.

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Macpherson): I would ask the House not to press me with regard to this Clause. As my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Henderson) has pointed out, the regional director is not a statutory person, and the region is not a statutory area,
but I am not dwelling on that point, which as my hon. and gallant Friend remarked, is purely technical. I am dealing with the Clause on its merits. I agree with almost everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Graham), but he must recollect that, rightly or wrongly, the whole Pension Issue Department was centralised in London, and that, as I pointed out in Committee, there are no fewer than 3,500,000 beneficiaries. It is extremely difficult to divide up into eleven distinct regions that tremendous number of beneficiaries within any limited time. I can, however, assure my hon. Friends that this matter is receiving our most careful and earnest consideration at the present time, and I hope comparatively shortly to be able to attempt an experiment, first of all in London and then in Edinburgh, to see how this decentralisation will work. I agree that it is highly desirable that the issue and the award offices should be placed, if possible, in the same building. That is the ideal state of things. Circumstances however, being as they are, after nearly 4½ years' experience, the whole thing being centralised, and there being such an enormous number of beneficiaries, it is difficult to decentralise again on the spur of the moment.
With regard to the registration of artificial limbs, my hon. Friends will remember that a Committee sat to consider this question not very long ago, and came to the unanimous conclusion that it would not be at all advisable to decentralise the whole question of limbs from the central Ministry. If that were done there would at once be competition between the various regions, and one region might fare much better than another. There is a second and even more cogent reason namely, that we have from 30,000 to 40,000 duplicate limbs to supply. As soon as these have been issued, the yearly output of limbs will be from 7,000 to 8,000. We are, however, decentralising the whole of the repairs, and I understand, from information I have received, that, if that is done now, and satisfactorily, it will go a very long way towards meeting the contention which my hon. Friend has put forward. I should also like to tell the House that the Ministry is at present standardising limbs, and if they are standardised it will be very essential that they should
be in the entire possession of the central Ministry in London, and if the limb is standardised, as I hope it will be very soon, and will be produced very soon, I hope there will be no delay such as occurred unfortunately in the distribuion of limbs to the pensioners all over the country.
With regard to the Special Grants Committee, it is, in theory, under the Ministry of Pensions, but it is, in fact, practically independent of them. It is quite clear, if one considers the position for a moment, that it would be very difficult to decentralise the Special Grants Committee. It has come into existence at the instance of Parliament in order to reconsider cases which have already been considered by the Ministry of Pensions, and quite obviously it would not be easy, even if it were well advised, to decentralise this outside, independent statutory body under the control of the regions. The regions being under the control of the Ministry, you would have a very complicated system. Take one point. You must have under the Special Grants Committee uniformity of distribution all over the country. If it were possible under this Bill—in my view it is not, but if it were—you would not get uniformity of distribution of the grant. You would have local pressure here and local pressure there, and you would have so much lack of uniformity that, in my judgment, in a very short time you would have an outcry that this particular independent body should remain as it is now, centralised in London with full powers in the matter and dispensing its bounty in a uniform manner over the entire country. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not press this. It is my own personal desire and wish that they should get issues in Edinburgh as being the centre of the Scottish region. [Interruption.] I am certainly considering all the regions, but Scotland is so much pressed on me that I am considering Scotland first.

Captain COOTE: So far from things improving, they are getting gradually worse. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the misery which is caused, particularly in mental cases, when a man's pension is delayed through no fault of his own.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Functions of joint disablement committees.)
With a view to facilitating the administration of war pensions the status and functions of the joint disablement committees existing in Scotland shall be of such a nature as may be defined by the Minister in any order issued by him within six months after the passing of this Act, due regard being had by him in the making of such an order to any recommendations which may be made by the regional director in Scotland after consultation with his regional advisory council and the joint disablement committees concerned.—Mr. W. Graham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The problem which is raised in this Clause is one which I almost hesitate to press upon the House because it is confined entirely to Scotland and we at all events in Edinburgh and Leith have occupied to-night a considerable amount of time. The question is one of the very highest importance. When the war pensions administration was applied to Scotland we established four disablement committees, one for the northern district of Scotland, one for the south-west, one for the central and one for the south-east. These joint disablement committees, which were representative of all forms of activity in war pensions administration, were charged with three duties, the provision of employment for the discharged and disabled, the provision of training and the provision of treatment. In the course of experience since that time their powers and duties have been whittled down. In the first place, employment was taken away from their care and placed under the care of the Ministry of Labour. Later they were deprived of the training of disabled men, and the only duty that survives is the provision of medical treatment and care for the various classes of disability or illness. In Scotland, as the previous debate this evening shows, we attach a very great deal to sentimental considerations, and there is the strongest sentiment in favour of the joint disablement committees. They are familiar with the hospital provision, with the convalescent provision, and all the other curative provisions which exist in the districts over which they preside. They are very anxious with regard to their future, and I regret to say that we have not received from the
Ministry of Pensions any very clear lead on that point. We propose that the powers and duties of the joint disablement committees should be defined at the earliest possible moment, and as I have reason to believe that that is viewed in a not unfriendly spirit by the right hon. Gentleman, I will content myself in the hope that I shall have the support of the House.

Major HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.
The real difficulty in Scotland is that these joint disablement committees do not quite know where they are. In the committee which exists in the Glasgow area there is a great deal of uncertainty, even as to whether their expenses should be in the form of a capitation grant or in the form of estimates; there is a great deal of uncertainty in regard to stores, equipment, the opening of clinics, and as to their powers of medical appointment and the appointment of nurses and masseuses. It would facilitate administration enormously if they knew exactly where they stood. It would also avoid a great deal of unnecessary misunderstanding which is bound to arise when you get local committees who do not know how far they can go and how far they cannot go. Although the right hon. Gentleman may not be able to accept the Amendment in this form, I hope he will be able to meet us.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot accept the Amendment, but I can give an assurance that I will define the powers of the disablement committees as soon as I can.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 6 & 7 Geo. 5. c.

(1) The powers and duties transferred from the Admiralty, the Commissioners of the Royal Hospital for Soldiers at Chelsea, the Army Council, and the Secretary of State for War to the Minister by the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, shall, so far as those powers and duties relate to pensions or grants to which the War Pensions Acts as amended by this Act do not apply, be re-transferred to the Admiralty, the Commissioners, the Army Council, and the Secretary of State respectively, and all powers and duties with respect to the administration of pensions vested in the Minister under subsection (3) of section two of the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917, other than powers
with respect to pensions to which the War Pensions Acts as amended by this Act apply, shall be transferred to the Air Council, and the expressions "the present war," "the great war," or "the war" in any Warrants or Orders in Council relating to pensions, grants or allowances administered by the Minister shall have the same meaning as by virtue of this Act the expression "the present war" has in the War Pensions Acts, and all such Warrants and Orders in Council shall be construed and have effect accordingly.

(2) The expression "pension" in the Ministry of Pensions Act, 1916, and in subsection (3) of section two of the Air Force (Constitution) Act, 1917, shall, in relation to officers, include a wounds pension awarded to an officer who is at any time after the date on which this section comes into operation in receipt of retired pay, or in the case of a naval warrant officer of a pension, granted under a Warrant or Order in Council administered by the Minister.

(3) If any question arises as to whether any pension, grant or allowance is a pension, grant, or allowance to which the War Pensions Acts as amended by this Act apply, that question shall be referred to the Minister, and the decision of the Minister thereon shall be conclusive.

(4) This section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the thirtieth day after the termination of the war.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move to leave out Sub-section (1).
The Bill proposes in the first place to transfer the post-War pensioners of the, War Office, the Admiralty and the Air Council. The proposal is as regards these pensioners, to revert to the pre-war practice of determining their pensions. Our objection to this central and leading clause of the Bill—and on this point our opposition is vital—is that all who have any knowledge of pre-War conditions will condemn the system that obtained. Not only were the pensions inadequate—I do not specially plead that now—but the system itself was bad, because it did not entrust the settlement of these questions to the proper or appropriate authority. Since the War started we have built up a very large pensions machinery, and it is premature at this comparatively early date to hand over the determination of post-war questions to the Admiralty, the Air Force, and the War Office when we have in existence a large department for dealing with these very questions. There can be no question of economy, because every hon. Member recognises that, taking the most optimistic view of the matter, the Ministry of Pensions will continue for 20 or 30 years or it may be more. That
being so, we should maintain the advantage of keeping the provision of pensioners and all the other allied questions under one roof in one department with a Minister responsible on the floor of the House and avoid reverting to the pre-War system under which, with several Ministers responsible, we sometime experienced great difficulty in getting explanations and a settlement of any demands that we put forward. We object to the pre-War system for many reasons and we see no reason why it should be resumed at the present time. There is the difficulty of treatment. In Committee upstairs it was agreed that we should have only a few thousand cases, mainly of accident, but I intended to ask how these cases are to be provided for if some, and perhaps all of the machinery of the Ministry of Pensions, is not to be employed? We shall require to rely upon the machinery although the matter may be relegated to the three departments which I have named. That does not appear to be a satisfactory arrangement, and we think that the right hon. Gentleman, without any loss from any point of view, might well delay the adoption of this proposal. We regard a great deal of this Bill as thoroughly good and we are prepared to support it, but on this point I am afraid that we must press our opposition, if necessary to a Division, because we regard the system as bad, and we certainly think that a reversal to it at the present time is premature.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Captain LOSEBY: I cannot let this occasion go by without entering a strong and emphatic protest against this Clause. It is a complete mystery to me why it has been inserted at all. I am quite unable to understand it, and I only know that I feel it is a reactionary measure of the worst description. It is a bitter disappointment to those of us who looked on the Ministry of Pensions as a Ministry capable of great powers of extension and to be increased rather than whittled down. What precisely does it mean? I believe we shall have wars of one kind or another and that we shall be getting disabled men for the next ten years, and although we have this Ministry we are going to revert to the old and bad state of things. I cannot understand why we
should do so. We are going back to a state of things under which one man is going to be looked after by one department and another man by another department: thus we are reverting to the ridiculous and anomalous state of affairs which existed prior to the war. Disabled men are going to be nobody's children and to have nobody holding a main brief for them. The right hon. Gentleman knows and every Member of this House who has spoken, and certainly every member of this Select Committee, were against him and Members who have taken special interest in pensions have opposed this particular Clause. I hope that even at this last minute the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us and to withdraw this Clause. I regard this Clause as being so damning that it will undo any good in the Bill, which I recognise has many good points. It is an infinite pity that the Bill should be marred by this particular Clause. Does it mean that the determination in some quarters is to put an end to this particular Ministry on which many of us had centred our greatest political hopes.

Lieut-Commander HILTON YOUNG: The question of the administration of the pensions system is one which is receiving a good deal of attention at the present time from various responsible questions. It is recognised that the administration can be carried out efficiently only by whole-time officers. Obviously, it is undesirable that there should be a duplication of such service amongst various offices. I would like to ask whether there is any danger of the work being disorganised by being put into the hands of various offices, and whether the proposed arrangement would stand with the way of what is commonly agreed to be the true course, namely, the unification and centralisation of the payment of pensions.

Mr. MILLS: May I ask whether, if this be carried, will delete the right of appeal which was brought into existence by the Pensions Act of 1919?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. I did my level best to meet the criticisms and the contentions of the Committee upstairs, and I thought I had gone a very long way indeed when I had made two concessions, one with regard to the administration of
pre-War pensions and the other with regard to the date remaining in the Bill. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh had made two points, and one of them is most important. He said that the future pensioner would not know to whom to apply. As a matter of fact all future war pensioners will have only one authority to whom to go. Before the great War, as the House knows, the one test for a pension was not disability but service. During the great War the one test was disability and not service. We are going back to peace conditions, when the one test will be service, and not disability. A man of the Air Service must go to the Royal Air Force for recognition of Air service, an Army man to the Army, and a Naval man to the Navy. Pensioners in future will be only about 4,000 or 5,000 a year. Suppose that among those there was a man who sought a pension because of disability. The very people who would calculate or assess the recognition of his services could also calculate the assessment for disability. There would be no additional labour required. The Ministry of Pensions was created for the Great War and for that war alone. Every Pensions Act from 1914 to 1920 refers specifically to the Great War, and so do the Royal Warrants issued during the last few years. It was therefore contemplated that in theory and in practice the Ministry of Pensions was established for one purpose only, namely, to deal as expeditiously and systematically as possible with pensions which were due to the Great War.
If I were to continue to control the pensions of the future I should require new legislation, new warrants. My powers are only temporary, and the House of Commons, by the very fact of passing those laws relating to the Ministry of Pensions, meant expressly to apply it to the great war. I can assure my hon. Friends that this is a question which has caused a great deal of anxiety to myself and to my colleagues, but I am convinced that as regards the payment of pensions in the future there are very great safeguards in the permanent committee to be established. I am convinced that it will be easier in view of the fact that in the future if you go back again you will be concerned with only one department. If the Ministry of Pensions were to introduce a new law to continue adminis-
tration of future pensions you would have to go not to one department but to three. So really the simplicity and uniformity of the proposals in this Bill are a great advantage. I have shown my inclination to meet all reasonable criticism by concessions which I have put in the Bill and those which I will move shortly. There is every safeguard to all pensioners or likely pensioners up to a month after the great war, and in retaining control at the Ministry of Pensions of pre-war pensions we have gone a very long way, and future pensions will be more appropriately administered by the service departments. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment, but will let the Clause stand.

Major BARNES: I do not think that the explanation which we have just heard is satisfactory. It is difficult to understand why in this particular case the Government should adopt a policy the reverse of that which they have adopted in all other cases in which they have co-ordinated the activities of various Government Departments. We have had several Bills and in each of those cases the policy of the Government has been to gather together the functions of different departments and place them all on the new Ministry. Here is a case in which we have a Ministry established in more necessitous circumstances than those of any other Ministry set up by Parliament and almost before it has got into being and settled down to do its work we are faced with the proposal that powers and duties transferred to it should now be transferred back again to the Departments from which they were taken.

Mr. MACPHERSON: That is not so. I am keeping all the powers which I have got and assuming some more. I am taking to myself a new power, namely that the "wound" pensions which were formerly administered by the Army, Navy, or Air Force are now administered by me.

Major BARNES: I do not quite understand that explanation when one reads the Clause, which says that the powers and duties transferred shall be re-transferred to the Admiralty.

Major HENDERSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not looking at the
Amendment on the Paper to be proposed by the Minister.

Question put, "That the words proposed be left out down to the word "so"

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "shall" ["shall, so far as those powers and duties"], to insert the words "except in."
12.0 M
These two words must be read in conjunction with the next Government Amendment a couple of lines further on. The object is to secure that the Ministry of Pensions shall in future not only administer the pensions for wounds in the Great War, but wounds, disabilities, etc., incurred in former wars. I think everyone will be agreed on this.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In Subsection (1) leave out the words "do not apply" ["as amended by this Act do
["Pensions Act 1916, shall, so"] stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 74; Noes, 39.

Division No.218.]
Ayes.
[11.58p.m


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Glyn, Major Ralph
Perkins, Walter Frank


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Raper, A. Baldwin


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Barnston, Major Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Remer, J. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Breese, Major Charles E.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Bruton, Sir James
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Smith, Harold(Warrington)


Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H.
Jones, William Kennedy (Hornsey)
Stanley, Major H. G. (Preston)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Sturrock, J. Leng


Casey, T. W.
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Sugden, W. H.


Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Sutherland, Sir William


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Lort-Williams, J.
Townley, Maximilian G.


Curzon, Commander Viscount
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Tryon, Major George Clement


Dawes, James Arthur
McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Whitla, Sir William


Fildes, Henry
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Ford, Patrick Johnston
Mitchell, William Lane
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


Forrest, Walter
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Murray, John (Leeds, West)



Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Neal, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)
Ward.




NOES.


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Swan, J. E.


Brace, Rt. Hon. William
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cape, Thomas
MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)
Morgan, Major D. Watts
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
O'Grady, Captain James
Waterson, A. E.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Raffan, Peter Wilson
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Gould, James C.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)


Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)
Rose, Frank H.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Sexton, James



Grundy, T. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Sitch, Charles H.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Mills.


Hartshorn, Vernon
Spencer, George A.



Hayday, Arthur

not apply"], and insert instead thereof the words
apply or to pensions or grants awarded in respect of wounds, disabilities, or other matters suffered, incurred, or happening in any war which occurred before the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen.

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "Section" ["this Section comes into operation"], and insert instead thereof the word "Sub-section."

Leave out Sub-section (4), and insert instead thereof

(4) The provisions of Sub-section (2) of this Section shall have effect as from the first day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty, and the other provisions of this Section shall have effect as from the thirtieth day after the date fixed under The Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act, 1919, as the date of the termination of the present war.—[Mr. Macpherson.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Application of War Pensions Acts.)

The expression "the present war" in the War Pensions Acts shall mean any war carried on by His Majesty at any time during the period from the fourth day of August nineteen hundred and fourteen, to the thirtieth day after the termination of the war, both inclusive, and accordingly, unless the context otherwise requires, references in those Acts to pensions, grants, and allowances, and to deceased or disabled officers or men, shall respectively be construed as references to pensions, grants, and allowances, granted, made, or awarded in respect of wounds, disablements or other matters suffered, incurred, or happening during the said period, whether the officers or men to or in respect of whom the pensions grants, or allowances are granted, made or awarded, retired or are discharged from the service, or die before the expiration of the said period, or whether they so retire or are discharged or die after the expiration of the said period, and to officers and men who have died or been disabled through causes arising out of their service during that period, whether they retire or are discharged from the service or die before the expiration of the said period, or whether they so retire, or are discharged, or die after the expiration of the said period:

Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the operation of section three of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919.

Amendment made: Leave out the words "termination of the war," and insert instead thereof the words
date fixed under The Termination of the Present War (Definition) Act, 1918, as the date of the termination of the present war."—[Mr. Macpherson.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Power to divide county area into districts and to establish committees for districts.)

(1) Where it appears to the Minister that, with a view to the better administration of the War Pensions Acts in any county, it is expedient so to do, he may by order make a scheme for dividing the area of the county into such number of districts as he thinks proper, and for establishing for each of those districts a committee to act as a committee for the purposes of the War Pensions Acts in that district: Provided that before any order is made under this section, an opportunity shall be given to any regional advisory council, established by the Minister, within whose area it is proposed to make a scheme, to express an opinion on such a scheme, and that due regard shall he had to such opinion in the making of any subsequent order.

(2) Committees established by the Minister under this section shall be deemed to be local committees within the meaning of the War Pensions Acts, and the scheme estab-
lishing any such committee shall provide for the representation on and inclusion among the members of the committee of persons who are required to be representd on, or included among the members of local committees constituted under the Act of 1915, and may also provide for the inclusion among the members of the committee of persons appointed by any local authorities whose area or any part of whose area is comprised in the district.

(3) Every order by which a scheme is made under this section shall provide for the dissolution of the local committee established for the county, and for the transfer to or distribution among the committees to be established for the several districts in the area of the dissolved committee of any business pending before and for securing so far as practicable that officers in the employment of the dissolved committee shall be transferred to the committees to be established as aforesaid for the several districts, and employed by those committees in posts suitable to their standing and qualifications, and any such order may contain such other supplemental and consequential provisions as the Minister thinks necessary for the purpose of securing the due administration of the War Pensions Acts in that area.

(4) Where the local committee for a county is dissolved under this section, any local committee established for any borough or urban district in the county in pursuance of the provisions of section three of the Naval and Military War Pensions, &c. (Administrative Expenses) Act, 1917, shall exercise the functions of a local committee set forth in paragraph (f) of section four of the Act of 1915 without being so directed by the Minister in pursuance of section eleven of the Act of 1918.

(5) If the local committee for the County of London is dissolved under this section, the provisions of section four of the Naval and Military War Pensions, &c. (Administrative Expenses) Act, 1917, shall, as from the date of the order, cease to have effect, and provision shall be made under section three, subsection (1), of this Act for the establishment of a separate local committee for the City of London and for each metropolitan borough.

(6) Every order made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat next after the said order is laid before it praying that the order may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the order, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

(7) Any order made under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner and subject to the like conditions.

(8) In this section the expression "county" means the area of a local committee for a county.

Sir E. WILD: I beg to move to leave out the Clause.
I move this Amendment in a friendly spirit to the Government. But there is a strong feeling in the counties, particularly in county boroughs, that the effect of this Clause may be to take away the compactness and autonomy of the local committees. By the Act of 1915, Section 2, there was established a local committee for every county and every county borough. The constitution of that Committee was determined by the scheme framed by the Council of the county or borough, or by the local district. When the Act of 1916 set up the Pensions Ministry, Section 4 contained the provisions for the constitution, powers and duties of the local committees. The House knows that the local committees have been formed at the instigation of the local authorities, do represent the feeling of the localities, and so tend to the adequate administration of the pensions.
This new Clause 3, as proposed to be amended by the Minister of Pensions, enables him to divide the country into districts. The fear that is expressed by the people I represent—the soldiers and sailors in my constituency—and that fear I understand is not confined to them—is lest the net result of this alteration is that two or three county boroughs are amalgamated for the purposes of the local committee with a larger area, and the same thing may happen in regard to the counties. You may, therefore, get this unfortunate state of things: instead of having a compact area as at present, you may have a large area, and an overlapping area, with the result that you may have two local authorities represented upon the same local committee with divergent interests, and that will tend to defeat the main object of these Committees that they should be independent local committees. I feel certain that the Minister of Pensions will be able to give us an assurance that although it may be with regard to certain small local committees convenient to put them into large areas, yet the case of county boroughs such as that with which I am associated, where the population is something like 350,000, then autonomy will not be interfered with. If I can have an assurance to that effect I shall ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Major HENDERSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Major TRYON: I am glad to be able to assure my hon. Friend that in such cases as he has referred to there would be no advantage whatever in the abolition of the local committees. We believe that under the arrangements we contemplate their autonomy and independence will be even greater than at the present time, and they will have more direct access to the higher authorities. We fully appreciate the work of these local committees.

Sir E. WILD: On that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (1) after the word "district" ["Acts in that district"] insert the words "or in the case of any such district for amalgamating the district with the area of an existing local committee."

Leave out the words "Provided that before any order is made under this section, an opportunity shall be given to any regional advisory council, established by the Minister, within whose area it is proposed to make a scheme, to express an opinion on such scheme, and that due regard shall be had to such opinion in the making of any subsequent order."—[Mr. Macpherson.]

In Sub-section (1), after the words last inserted, add the words "Provided that where the Minister proposes to make a scheme under this section he shall give notice of the proposed scheme to the committee of any county affected, and if the Committee within fourteen days after the receipt of the notice make to the Minister in writing any representations with respect to the proposed scheme the Minister shall take those representations into consideration before making the scheme."—[Mr. Raffan.]

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "to be established for the several districts in" and insert instead thereof the word "comprising." Leave out the words "committees to be established as aforesaid for the several districts," and insert instead thereof the words "said committees."

In Sub-section (5), leave out the words "under Section three, Sub-section (1)
of this Act" and insert instead thereof the words "by the scheme under Sub-
Section (1) of this Section."—[Mr. Macpherson.]

CLAUSE 8.—(Statutory right of widow and children to a pension.)

The widow or dependant of a deceased officer or man shall be entitled to receive such pension, gratuity, or allowance as is awarded by the Minister under any Warrant or Order in Council for the time being in force in respect of that officer or man, and for the payment whereof money has been provided by Parliament, but the award of any such pension, gratuity, or allowance shall be subject to the conditions contained in the Warrant or Order.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I beg to move, after the word "or" ["the widow or"], to insert the word "any."
The object of this is to ensure that no dependants shall be left out under this provision, and if I can have an assurance that that is clear, I will not press the Amendment.

Major TRYON: I do not think any advantage is to be gained by inserting these words other than that which is secured by the next Amendment which the Minister has on the paper.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I beg to move at the end of the Clause to insert a new Sub-section—
(2) Section eight of The War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act, 1919 (which
provides for appeals to pensions appeals tribunals), shall have effect as though the words "or parent or dependant" were inserted therein after the words "motherless child.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Does this Amendment cover all classes of dependants? I do not want any dependant, because the relationship may be a little remote, to be excluded. All I ask is an assurance that all classes of dependants are covered.

Major TRYON: I can give the assurance that all classes are covered, and will get the rights already granted to widows under the War Pensions Administrative Provisions Act, 1919.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nineteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.